From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Finander

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2018
Case No. CV 15-1317-PA (SP) (C.D. Cal. May. 14, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. CV 15-1317-PA (SP)

05-14-2018

RICKY HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. PAULETTE FINANDER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which defendants have objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. // //

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: defendant Finander's Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 51) is denied; defendants Marcelo and Fitter's Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 66) is granted only to the extent of dismissing without leave to amend any potential claim for retaliation against defendants Marcelo and Fitter only; and defendants Marcelo and Fitter's Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects. Defendants are ordered to answer the Second Amended Complaint within fourteen days of this Order. DATED: May 14, 2018

/s/_________

PERCY ANDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Howard v. Finander

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2018
Case No. CV 15-1317-PA (SP) (C.D. Cal. May. 14, 2018)
Case details for

Howard v. Finander

Case Details

Full title:RICKY HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. PAULETTE FINANDER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 14, 2018

Citations

Case No. CV 15-1317-PA (SP) (C.D. Cal. May. 14, 2018)