Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Osollo v. Darling-Hammond, CV 16-3045-SJO (AS). (2017)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20170123459 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE S. JAMES OTERO , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all of the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the M
More

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all of the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) The Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants McKenna, Garcia, Zimmer, Ratliff, Vladovic, Berman, Avila, Barragan, Woods and Torres (Dkt. No. 82) is DENIED without prejudice;

(2) The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants McKenna, Garcia, Zimmer, Ratliff, Vladovic, Berman, Avila, Barragan and Woods (Dkt. No. 58) is GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants McKenna, Garcia, Zimmer, Ratliff, Vladovic, Woods, Barragan, Barela-Johnson, Sullivan, Butler, Heckenberg-Garner, Sumpter, Webb, Carvajales, "Jerry," "Davis," "K.B.," "L.C.," Jane Doe No. 1, "A.I.," "M.M.," "N.G.," and Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff's First and Fourth Claims, his state law claims, and his official capacity claims against the CTC and COC members are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and

(4) Plaintiff's Second, Third and Fifth Claims ARE DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he must file a Third Amended Complaint that cures the pleading defects discussed in the Report and Recommendation no later than thirty (30) days from the date or this Order. Any Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff must be complete in itself without reference to any prior complaint or any other document, and must not name any defendant that this Court has dismissed without leave to amend, or add any new claims or new defendants without obtaining prior leave of the Court.

Plaintiff may not serve, or cause to be served, any Third Amended Complaint that is filed personally on any named defendant absent further court order. Plaintiff may serve any Third Amended Complaint on counsel for any represented defendants who have already appeared in this matter.

Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely file a Third Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies described in the Report and Recommendation will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on Plaintiff at his current address of record.

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