(PS) Lull et al v. County of Placer et al, No. 2:2017cv02216 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2019 ADOPTING 41 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING as MOOT Plaintiffs Conor Bugbee, Kevin Burrage, and Kaleigh Burrage's claims, GRANTING Defendants' 21 Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and DENYING Plaintiff Lull's 35 motion to amend the first amended complaint. Plaintiff Lull's claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)

Download PDF
(PS) Lull et al v. County of Placer et al Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 CHRISTOPHER LULL, CONOR BUGBEE, KEVIN BURRAGE, KALEIGH BURRAGE, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 No. 2:17-cv-2216-KJM-EFB PS ORDER v. COUNTY OF PLACER, TIMOTHY WEGNER, STEVE PEDRETTI, JOSEPH ZANARINI, STEVEN SOLOMON, 17 Defendants. 18 On September 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 20 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 23 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 24 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 25 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 26 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2019, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiffs Conor Bugbee, Kevin Burrage, and Kaleigh Burrage’s claims are dismissed 4 as moot; 5 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF No. 21) is granted; 6 4. Plaintiff Lull’s motion to amend the first amended complaint (ECF No. 35) is denied; 7 5. Plaintiff Lull’s claims are dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a 8 9 10 claim; and 6. The Clerk is directed to close the case. DATED: September 30, 2019. 11 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.