Selck v. County of Sacramento, 2:18-cv-2447-JAM-EFB PS. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191015b64
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On September 6, 2019, 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. No objections were filed. 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,
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On September 6, 2019, 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. No objections were filed. 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, ..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On September 6, 2019, 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. No objections were filed.
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 6, 2019, are ADOPTED;
2. Defendant Tapella's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 6) is granted and all claims against her are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
3. Defendant Tapella's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute (ECF No. 7) and motion to strike and/or dismiss plaintiff's first and second amended complaints (ECF No. 26) is denied as moot;
4. Plaintiff's claims against defendant County of Sacramento are dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
5. Plaintiff's first, second, and third amended complaints, construed as motions for leave to amend (ECF Nos. 24, 25, 33), are denied;
6. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 20 & 22) are denied; and
7. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
Source: Leagle
