Bailey v. Enloe Medical Center, No. 2:2018cv00055 - Document 96 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/23/2022 ADOPTING 75 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING 62 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's 3rd, 4th, and 5th claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's 7th claim based on statements made to Plaintiff's union representatives, California Employment Development Department, and California Health and Human Services Agency, is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's 7th claim based on statements m ade to Cal Fire is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff's 8th claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative. Within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall either file a Third Amended Complaint to cure the defects identified as to his 7th claim based on statements made to Cal Fire, or elect to voluntarily dismiss the remainder of the 7th claim and proceed solely on the 1st, 2nd, and 6th claims for relief as alleged in 61 Second Amended Complaint. (Huang, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bailey v. Enloe Medical Center Doc. 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAN BAILEY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:18-CV-0055-KJM-DMC v. ORDER ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for wrongful 17 18 termination. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern 19 District of California local rules. 20 On February 23, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 23 filed. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 27 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 23, 2021, are adopted in 6 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 62, is granted; 7 3. Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and fifth claims are dismissed with prejudice; 8 4. Plaintiff’s seventh claim based on statements made to Plaintiff’s union 5 full; 9 representatives, statements made to the California Employment Development Department, and 10 statements made to the California Health and Human Services Agency claim is dismissed with 11 prejudice; 12 13 5. Plaintiff’s seventh claim based on statements made to Cal Fire is dismissed with leave to amend; 14 6. Plaintiff’s eighth claim is dismissed with prejudice as duplicative; and 15 7. Within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall: 16 17 (i) file a third amended complaint to cure the defects identified in the findings and recommendations as to his seventh claim based on statements made to Cal Fire; 18 19 20 or (ii) elect to voluntarily dismiss the remainder of the seventh claim and proceed solely on the first, second, and sixth claims for relief as alleged in the second amended complaint. 21 22 DATED: May 23, 2022. 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.
