THOMAS v. HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., 2:13-cv-02250 TLN-AC. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150512799
Visitors: 4
Filed: May 11, 2015
Latest Update: May 11, 2015
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March 30, 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. (ECF No. 57.) Defendant has filed objections to the find
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March 30, 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. (ECF No. 57.) Defendant has filed objections to the findi..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On March 30, 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. (ECF No. 57.) Defendant has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff has filed a reply to the objections. (ECF No. 60.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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 by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 30, 2015, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 49), is granted as to Plaintiff's claims for violation of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend these claims;
3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983;
4. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff's claim for violation of the Family Medical Leave Act;
5. Defendant's Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 49), is denied;
6. Defendant's Motion for a more definite statement, (ECF No. 49), is denied; and
7. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of the district judge's order in this matter to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Fourth Amended Complaint," failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action will be dismissed without leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
