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.

Smith v. Los Angeles County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 19, 2010

KEVIN B. SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed: the Third Amended Complaint; all of the files and records herein; the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed on April 22, 2010 ("Report"); Plaintiff's Objections to the Report filed on June 16, 2010; Plaintiff's Statement of Objections/Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Magistrate Judge's April 22, 2010 Order filed on May 27, 2010; and Plaintiff's Statement of Objections/Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Magistrate Judge's May 25, 2010 Order filed on June 10, 2010. The Court has conducted a de novo review of those matters to which Objections have been stated in writing. Having completed its de novo review, the Court finds as follows:

With respect to the Magistrate Judge's Order of April 22, 2010, which denied Plaintiff's discovery motion, none of Plaintiff's assertions warrant reconsideration, because the April 22, 2010 Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Magistrate Judge's Order of May 25, 2010, was correct, because Plaintiff may not amend the Third Amended Complaint to reinstate claims that earlier were dismissed on the ground that they were unexhausted when this case was filed. Thus, reconsideration of the March 25, 2010 Order also is not warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions filed on May 27, 2010, and on June 10, 2010, are DENIED.

The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report, and the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Deputy Sheriff Sanchez is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant County of Los Angeles is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) the Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and (4) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

20100619

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.