Kent v. California Dep't of Consumer Affairs, CIV-S-09-02905 KJM KJN PS
| Decision Date | 26 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV-S-09-02905 KJM KJN PS,CIV-S-09-02905 KJM KJN PS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | JOHN KENT, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD, et al., Defendants. |
In this case, plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and has brought a number of claims including claims based on alleged violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 28, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Although no timely objections to the findings and recommendations were filed, the court will consider plaintiff's objections filed on July 18, 2011 (ECF No. 46).
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 file,the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, with the exception of the analysis and recommendation regarding plaintiff's third claim for relief.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on June 28, 2011, are ADOPTED,1 except with respect to plaintiff's third claim for relief.2
2. The motion to dismiss plaintiff's Ninth Amended Complaint filed by defendants Kevin Carr, Thomas Ebling, Jim Kleiman, Rick Lopez, Patricia Nelson, Sue Payne, Diana Roach, Anita Sisneros, Sue Stirewalt, Stephen Takimoto, Carl Vega, Rick Villucci and Leslie Yocum-Howell is granted in part and denied in part.
3. Plaintiff's first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh claims for relief are dismissed with prejudice.
4. Plaintiff's third and sixth claims for relief are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall incorporate the claims he believes are not time-barred in any amendment of his third claim for relief, based on the information presented in his objections.
5. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a tenth amended complaint that attempts to cure the pleading deficiencies in plaintiff's third and sixth claims for relief and re-alleges plaintiff's eighth and ninth claims for relief as provided in the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.
6. This matter is referred back to magistrate judge for entry of any order that judge deems appropriate addressing the nature and timing of the further amended complaint to be filed by plaintiff.
______________________
To continue reading
Request your trial