GASPARD v. DEA TASK FORCE, EDCV 15-01802-BRO (KES). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160505750
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 04, 2016
Latest Update: May 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed by any party. The Court hereby approves and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed by any party. The Court hereby approves and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United S..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed by any party. The Court hereby approves and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the following claims are dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice:
• All claims against the Moving Defendants City of Ontario, County of Riverside, Sheriff Sniff, County of San Bernardino and Sheriff McMahon;
• All claims against Defendant "DEA Task Force;"
• All claims against Defendant Farrow;
• All claims under sections 1985 and 1986; and
• All section 1983 claims against Defendant Rosenburg; and
(2) the following remaining claims are dismissed with leave to amend:
• All section 1983 claims against the City of San Bernardino and the Individual SBPD Defendants (Karmann, Schuelke, Thornburg, Vasquez, Vega, Campos, Madrigal, Valdivia, Bennett, Luna and Koalou);
• All Bivens claims against the City of San Bernardino, the Individual SBPD Defendants and Defendant Rosenburg;
• All of Plaintiff Gaspard's ADA claims against the City of San Bernardino and the Individual SBPD Defendants.
If Plaintiffs' wish to pursue the above-noted claims, Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") shall be due within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the District Court's Order.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. If Plaintiffs' choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, it should bear the docket number assigned in this case, be labeled "Second Amended Complaint," and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original or First Amended Complaint or any other pleading or document. Plaintiffs may serve the Second Amended Complaint on all Defendants who have appeared by serving their counsel of record. Plaintiffs must serve any Defendants who have not yet appeared in a manner that satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and then file a proof of service declaration.
Source: Leagle
