(PS) Hedrington v. County of Solano ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLONZO HEDRINGTON, No. 2:21-cv-0414 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER COUNTY OF SOLANO, FAIRFIELD 15 POLICE DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL ARIMBOANGA, DAVID GRANT 16 MEDICAL CENTER, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 21 On September 13, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and 24 recommendations. Plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations, ECF Nos. 36, 38, and 25 the United States responded, ECF No. 37. 26 The court has reviewed the file de novo. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that 27 this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the David Grant Medical Center 28 and that the claims against the United States and its officers and employees are time-barred under 1 || the Federal Tort Claims Act. See F&Rs at 7-8 & n.2. Summary judgment is granted to those 2 || defendants. The court also agrees with and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to 3 || remand this action to state court. See id. at 8-9. The remaining parties are not diverse, and 4 | plaintiff asserts no claims arising under federal law. See generally Compl., Notice of Removal 5 || Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1. This case has not progressed beyond the beginning stages. Remand is 6 || appropriate in these circumstances. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 7 || (1988); Macri v. King Cty., 126 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as 8 || explained in Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020, 9 || 1025 (9th Cir. 2007). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 13, 2021 (ECF No. 35) are 12 || adopted in full; 13 2. The March 15, 2021 motion for summary judgment filed by defendant David Grant 14 | Medical Center and Defendant United States of America (ECF No. 5) is granted; 15 3. Defendant David Grant Medical Center is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of 16 | jurisdiction; 17 4. Judgment is entered as to defendant United States of America; 18 5. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and 19 6. This action is remanded to the Solano County Superior Court. 20 | DATED: December 13, 2021. 21 22 l ti / ¢ q_/ 33 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28