BRADLEY v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WELFARE DIVISION, 2:13-cv-2420 TLN DAD PS. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150827787
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendati
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendatio..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On July 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has filed objection to the findings and recommendations.
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 July 22, 2015 (Dkt. No. 25) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant's November 21, 2014 amended motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is granted;
3. The amended complaint's race-based discrimination and hostile work environment causes of action are dismissed; and
4. Defendant is directed to file an answer to the amended complaint's age-based discrimination claim within 14 days of the date of any order adopting these findings and recommendations.
Source: Leagle
