(PS) Bator et al v. Dixon et al, No. 2:2019cv00018 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/27/2019 ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING Karen Dixon's 7 Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSING, without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a nd for failure to state a claim, Plaintiffs' claim(s) against her. Plaintiffs' claim(s) against Defendant Jon Lopey are SUA SPONTE DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' 15 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Bator et al v. Dixon et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY BATOR, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. No. 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB ORDER KAREN DIXON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Anthony Bator and Irene Bator, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled 18 action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On September 4, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 21.) No objections were 23 filed. 24 Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff Anthony Bator’s copy of the Findings and 25 Recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility 26 to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 27 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this 2 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and the magistrate 4 judge’s analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 4, 2019 (ECF No. 21), 7 8 9 10 11 12 are adopted in full; 2. Defendant Karen Dixon’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claim(s) against her are DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; 3. Plaintiffs’ claim(s) against Defendant Jon Lopey are sua sponte DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 13 4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; and 14 5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgement and close this file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: September 27, 2019 17 18 19 20 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.
