IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 8, 2009
MILOS LEUBNER, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).
On May 5, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Defendants Holden and Mazzera have also filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff will be directed to file a third amended complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 5, 2009, are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Mazzera's February 25, 2009 motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiff's first and third causes of action, but denied as to plaintiff's second cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment;
3. County defendants' March 2, 2009 motion to dismiss the first and third causes of action is granted; their motion to dismiss plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims is
a. Granted as to defendant Schmidt;
b. Denied as to defendant Holden;
c. Granted as to defendant Deputy Luck;
d. Granted as to defendant County with prejudice.
4. Plaintiff's April 17, 2009 second amended complaint (proposed) is dismissed;
5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a proposed third amended complaint that complies with the May 5, 2009 findings and recommendations.*fn1
Plaintiff shall specifically set forth facts supporting his claim that defendants Holden and Mazerra interfered with his right to family association, including specific instances defendants denied him visitation with his minor children.