Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bator v. Dixon, 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191002g98 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiffs Anthony Bator and Irene Bator, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 4, 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 day
More

ORDER

Plaintiffs Anthony Bator and Irene Bator, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On September 4, 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. (ECF No. 21.) No objections were filed.

Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff Anthony Bator's copy of the Findings and Recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff's responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and the magistrate judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 4, 2019 (ECF No. 21), are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Karen Dixon's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' claim(s) against her are DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim;

3. Plaintiffs' claim(s) against Defendant Jon Lopey are sua sponte DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; and

5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgement and close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer