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.

Latasha Parham v. Philip Steemers

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


March 16, 2012

LATASHA PARHAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PHILIP STEEMERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).

On October 11, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Objections to the findings and recommendations were filed on October 26, 2011, and they were considered by the district judge.

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 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011, are adopted in full.

2. Defendants Gaspar and Parker's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 6) is granted without leave to amend, and these defendants are dismissed from the case with prejudice.

3. Defendants Wilson, Hakenan, and Kenney's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 7) is granted without leave to amend, and these defendants are dismissed from the case with prejudice. 4. DefendantsJue and Vera's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 10) is granted without leave to amend, and these defendants are dismissed from the case with prejudice.

5. Defendants James, Davis, Wieser, and Bennett are dismissed from the case with prejudice.

6. Defendants Steemers and Dadisho's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 8) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action against these defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is given leave to amend her first cause of action to allege a conspiracy to violate her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under sections 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against defendants Steemers and Dadisho. If plaintiff elects to amend, these claims shall be set forth in separate causes of action. Plaintiff is given leave to amend her second cause of action to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Steemers and Dadisho. If plaintiff elects to amend, these claims shall likewise be set forth in separate causes of action.

20120316

© 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.