IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 28, 2011
CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, PLAINTIFF,
AMADOR COUNTY; LINDA VAN VLECK;
JOHN HAHN; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 40, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
On September 1, 2011, 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. After an extension of time, plaintiff filed objections on September 26, 2011, 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 Sch. 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 September 1, 2011, are ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 16, is granted.
3. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second amended complaint asserting federal claims, so long as he can cure the defects identified in the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations by truthfully alleging facts that are not inconsistent with those contained in his current complaint. In any second amended complaint, plaintiff must plead against which defendants he brings each cause of action, what each defendant did to support relief under each respective cause of action, and what actual injuries plaintiff has suffered as a result of each defendant's conduct. The second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint." Failure to timely file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation by the assigned magistrate judge that this action be dismissed.
5. Plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment, Dckt. No. 19, is denied without prejudice.
6. Plaintiff's request for an extension to serve the Doe defendants, Dckt. No. 30, is denied as moot.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.