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.

Brent Allan Winters, et al v. Delores Jordan

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


September 19, 2011

BRENT ALLAN WINTERS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DELORES JORDAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Judge

ORDER

On June 20, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 292) 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. On July 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, which have been considered by the court.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 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); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 June 20, 2011, are ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 189) is denied as to the following defendants: Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar, Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James Pogue, Patrick Chelsey, Hilary Frooman, John Taylor, and Eric Holder, Jr.

3. Defendant John Taylor's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 199) is granted on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and Taylor is dismissed from this action.

4. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar, Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James Pogue, Patrick Chelsey, and Hilary Frooman (Dkt. No. 186) is granted on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and these defendants are dismissed from this action.

20110919

© 1992-2011 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.