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.

Ruby J. Earl v. Clovis Unified School District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 8, 2012

RUBY J. EARL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On October 17, 2011, plaintiff Ruby J. Earl ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint in this Court against the Clovis Unified School District ("CUSD" or "Defendant"). Plaintiff alleges she was discriminated against on the basis of race when Defendant refused to award her a sports officiating contract in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff additionally asserts Defendant's discriminatory practices violate Title 42 of the United States Code, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the California Education Code § 220 et seq., and constitute a "[v]violation of [the] Continuous Violations Doctrine[,] 79 Cal. App. 4th 570." (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 3, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued Findings and Recommendations recommending Plaintiff's allegations against CUSD under 43 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986, the California Education Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and for negligence, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and violations of the continuing violations doctrine be dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. 6.) Judge McAuliffe additionally recommended that Plaintiff's claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2000d was sufficiently pled for purposes of pro se screening. Id. The January 3, 2012 findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days of service of the Order. (Doc. 6, 8: 4-7.) The parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 3, 2012, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's claims under 43 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986, the California Education Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and for negligence, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and for violations of the continuing violations doctrine are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

3. Plaintiff's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2000d may proceed as they are sufficiently pled for purposes of pro se screening.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120208

© 1992-2012 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.