A.B. v. County of Kern ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.B., No.: 1:20-cv-1337-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., (Doc. Nos. 11, 22.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff A.B. asserts that her rights arising under federal and state law were violated by Kern 18 County Deputy Sherriff Michael Clark and the County of Kern. She contends she suffered gender 19 violence and sexual battery in violation of California law, as well as several civil rights violations. (See 20 generally Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff seeks relief from California’s government tort claim presentation 21 requirement pursuant to an exemption procedure set forth in California Government Code § 946.6 (“§ 22 946.6”). (Doc. No. 11.) The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 concluding that the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested under § 946.6, because 24 that authority is reserved to the California Superior Courts. (See Doc. No. 22 at 5-8.) Therefore, the 25 magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 22.) 26 The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendations that the 27 action be dismissed. (Doc. No. 22 at 8.) In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file 28 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id. 1 || (citing Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th 2 || Cir. 2014)).) To date, no objections have been filed by any party. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 4 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of the case. 5 || Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported b 6 || the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. The findings and recommendations dated November 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 22) are 9 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 10 2. Plaintiff's motion for relief from the Government Tort Claim Presentation Requiremet 11 (Doc. 11) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. = 4 14 Dated: _ December 12, 2020 ja Te Ae a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28