(PS) Staar v. County of Amador, No. 2:2017cv00974 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/22/2017 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 1 Request for TRO. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with 20 days leave to amend. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
(PS) Staar v. County of Amador Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICA STAAR, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-0974-MCE-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF AMADOR, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 11, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff 20 filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4), which have been considered 21 by the Court. 22 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 25 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 26 has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 27 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 28 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 3 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations, except to the extent 4 they recommend dismissal without leave to amend. Rather, the Court finds that granting leave to 5 amend is appropriate here, only so that Plaintiff may amend her complaint to state a cognizable 6 federal claim of due process and/or equal protection violations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 7 ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED. 9 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with 20 days leave to amend. 10 3. Plaintiff’s request for TRO (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: June 22, 2017 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.