Barnett v. Dunn

Full title: PAMELA BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. DAMON JERRELL DUNN, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 6, 2011

No. CIV S-10-2216 KJM DAD PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-2216 KJM DAD PS.

September 6, 2011

ORDER

KIMBERLY MUELLER, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On March 24, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. No reply has been filed.

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 order and findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.¹

1 The court notes that, while accurate, the discussion in the findings and recommendations on page 9, lines 1-16, is not essential to resolution of the motion to dismiss.

On July 25, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the undersigned recuse herself from this case. Having carefully considered this request in light of the applicable law, the undersigned declines to recuse. See 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for recusal filed July 25, 2011 (ECF No. 39) is denied;

2. The findings and recommendations filed March 24, 2011 (ECF No. 34) are adopted in full;

3. Defendant USEAC's August 27, 2010 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted;

4. Plaintiff's July 12, 2010 amended complaint (ECF No. 1, Attach.) is dismissed without leave to amend in this court;

5. Defendants Bowen and Brown's August 24, 2010 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot;

6. Plaintiff's September 8, 2010 motion for a three-judge panel (ECF No. 11) is denied as moot;

7. This matter is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and

8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

DATED: September 5, 2011.