IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 9, 2012
DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE; EL DORADO COUNTY; ANDREW EISSINGER; CHARLES DUKE, DEFENDANTS.
On April 12, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. Plaintiff filed objections on April 23, 2012, and they were considered by the undersigned.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.*fn1 Plaintiff's request for a protective order, made in his objections, is unsupported and is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 12, 2012, are ADOPTED.
2. Defendant El Dorado County's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 40, is granted without leave to amend.
3. The City defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 39, is granted as follows:
a. Any Monell claims against the City of South Lake Tahoe are dismissed with leave to amend.
b. Any state law claims are dismissed without leave to amend;
c. Any remaining federal claims against Officers Eissinger and Duke are dismissed with leave to amend as narrowed by the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.
4. Plaintiff is provided thirty days from the date of this order to file a third amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge's April 12 findings and recommendations.
5. Plaintiff's request for a protective order is denied.