IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 19, 2011
KATHLYN A. RHODES, PLAINTIFF,
PLACER COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter came on for a status (pretrial scheduling) conference on May 19, 2011. Plaintiff Kathlyn Rhodes ("plaintiff") is a licensed attorney bringing this action in propria persona.*fn1
Plaintiff attended the status conference on her own behalf. Attorney David Huskey attended on behalf of Placer County and the Placer County defendants Edward N. Bonner, Mike Seipert, and Cheryl Hamilton. Attorney Robert Tyler attended on behalf of defendants Drs. David Fakhri and Sonja M. Jackson. Attorney Amie McTavish attended on behalf of the City of Rocklin and the City of Rocklin defendants Thomas Platina, Susan Davis, Darrell Jantz, Jennifer Collins, Mark Siemens, and Carlos Urrutia. Attorney Patrick Stokes attended on behalf of American Medical Response. Attorney Jerome Varanini attended on behalf of California Forensic Medical Group ("CFMG") and the CFMG defendants Dr. Taylor Fithian, Elaine Hustedt, and Don Hustedt. Attorney David Wallis attended on behalf of Choice Hotels International Inc., d/b/a Comfort Suites; Sac City Lodging Partners, LLC d/b/a Comfort Suites, Myrna Yao, and Eva Cooper. Defendants Sacramento County (sued herein as Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center ("SCMHTC")) and Director Dorian Kittrell did not appear. Defendant Frank Patino did not appear.
In an order dated May 4, 2011, the court adopted the Findings and Recommendations dismissing various claims against Sacramento County/SCMHTC and Dorian Kittrell. (Dkt. No. 126.) While various claims against these defendants have been dismissed, however, there has not been a formal request to dismiss Sacramento County/SCMHTC and Dorian Kittrell from this case for all purposes, and no order clearly dismisses these defendants from the action.
During the status conference, plaintiff confirmed that the court's order dated May 4, 2011, dismissed various claims against Sacramento County/SCMHTC and Dorian Kittrell. Plaintiff confirmed that there was no reason an order should not issue clarifying that these defendants are dismissed from this action and may be removed from the service lists. Also during the status conference, the undersigned asked defense counsel whether any defendant would object to such an order. No objections were made.
Also during the status conference, the undersigned noted that plaintiff's pleading alleges that defendant Frank Patino is either an employee of SCMHTC or CFMG. The undersigned asked plaintiff whether the dismissal of SCMHTC from this action also warranted dismissal of Mr. Patino. Plaintiff stated that while she was unsure whether Mr. Patino was an employee of SCMHTC or CFMG, she would stipulate to the dismissal of Mr. Patino from this action.
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
1. Pursuant to the substance of the court's order dated May 4, 2011 (Dkt. No. 126) and all parties' stipulation on the record during the status conference on May 19, 2011, defendants Sacramento County/SCMHT, Dorian Kittrell, and Frank Patino be dismissed from this action with prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also E. Dist. Local Rule 304(b). Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. E. Dist. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.