(PS) Osborne v. Tracy Police Dept ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE OSBORNE, No. 2:20-cv-1805-JAM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 9, 12, 18.) 14 TRACY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 30, 2020 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 18), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On November 13, 20 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 19), which have 21 been considered by the court. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings 22 of fact to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 23 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. 24 Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to 25 which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the 26 applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate 27 judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 28 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18) are ADOPTED; 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot; 6 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED; 7 4. Plaintiff’s state-law, Title VII, and Monell claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 8 5. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against the individual defendants are DISMISSED 9 WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 10 6. Plaintiff is granted 21 days from the date of this order to amend her Section 1983 claims 11 against the individual officers. Plaintiff shall follow the “Standards for Amendment” 12 section contained in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 13 14 DATED: November 20, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez 15 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28