Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hamer v. El Dorado County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 18, 2010

PATRICK MICHAEL HAMER; DONNA LEE HAMER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EL DORADO COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

On February 19, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs filed objections on March 8, 2010, and they were considered by the undersigned.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979).

The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 19, 2010, are ADOPTED.

2. Defendants Ted Gaines and Steve Davey's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 42, is granted, and defendants Gaines and Davey are dismissed with prejudice from this case.

3. Defendant Edmund G. Brown, Jr.'s motion to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 58, 59, is granted, and defendant Brown is dismissed with prejudice from this case.

4. The County defendants' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 44, defendant Bob Anderson's motion to dismiss and motion to join in the other pending motions to dismiss, Dckt. No. 45, and defendant David Randall's motion to join in the other motions to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 55, 57, 65, are granted, and the following claims and defendants are dismissed as follows:

a. Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims for failure to enforce restraining orders, federal defamation claims, RICO claims, and § 1983 claims against Anderson and Randall, are dismissed without leave to amend;

b. Plaintiffs' § 1983 conspiracy claims, § 1983 claims against El Dorado County and Neves, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, are dismissed with leave to amend; and

c. Plaintiffs' remaining claims and defendants are dismissed with leave to amend pursuant to Rule 8 and for failure to comply with the June 9, 2009 order.

5. Plaintiffs' motions to strike, Dckt. Nos. 49, 54, and 68, are denied.

6. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the complaint one final time as to the claims and defendants discussed in the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.

Plaintiffs are admonished that any amended complaint may be no longer than twenty-five pages and are directed to submit the amended complaint within sixty days of this order. Plaintiffs are further admonished that failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation by the magistrate judge that this action be dismissed.*fn1


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.