McNeley v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, 2:18-cv-08766-MWF (MAA). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190327933
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 10, 18), the other records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Objection (ECF No. 37) and supporting documents (ECF Nos. 38-39), and Defendants' Response (ECF No.
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 10, 18), the other records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Objection (ECF No. 37) and supporting documents (ECF Nos. 38-39), and Defendants' Response (ECF No. ..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 10, 18), the other records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Objection (ECF No. 37) and supporting documents (ECF Nos. 38-39), and Defendants' Response (ECF No. 43). After conducting a de novo review 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.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED;
2. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are GRANTED for all claims for relief except the Bane Act claim;
3. Plaintiff is DENIED leave to amend the Complaint;
4. Supplemental jurisdiction is DECLINED over the remaining Bane Act claim for relief;
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; and
6. Judgment shall be ENTERED dismissing the entire action with prejudice.
Source: Leagle
