Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CLARK v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 2:15-cv-1211 JAM DB PS. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171006j75 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , 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 12, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. The fourte
More

ORDER

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 12, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed objections 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 12, 2017 (ECF No. 37) are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' December 5, 2016 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is granted in part and denied in part;

3. The second amended complaint's Monell and violation of the ADA claims are dismissed without leave to amend;

4. The second amended complaint's claim for illegal seizure against defendant County of Sacramento is dismissed without leave to amend;

5. Defendant Nelson and Defendant Kemp are directed to file an answer within fourteen days of the date of this order to the second amended complaint's claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; false arrest; excessive force; and illegal seizure of property; and

6. Defendant County of Sacramento is dismissed from this action.

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