(PS) Gaines v. Langurand

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNIFER GAINES, Case No. 2:21-cv-00808-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CARL LANGURAND, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 12, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 21 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 22 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 23 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 24 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the proper analysis, with one minor modification. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 12, 2024, are ADOPTED; 28 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED IN PART; 1 3. Plaintiffs official capacity claims for damages, including punitive damages, are 2 DISMISSED without leave to amend; 3 4. Plaintiffs non-official capacity state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to 4 refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction after plaintiff has complied with the 5 California Government Claims Act; 6 5. The motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects; and 7 6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 8 proceedings. 9 | DATED: March 25, 2024. 10 1] CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28