From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Los Angeles County

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 19, 2010
CV 07-7028-VAP (MAN) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2010)

Opinion


KEVIN B. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., Defendants. No. CV 07-7028-VAP (MAN). United States District Court, C.D. California. June 19, 2010.

          ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed: the Third Amended Complaint; all of the files and records herein; the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed on April 22, 2010 ("Report"); Plaintiff's Objections to the Report filed on June 16, 2010; Plaintiff's Statement of Objections/Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Magistrate Judge's April 22, 2010 Order filed on May 27, 2010; and Plaintiff's Statement of Objections/Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Magistrate Judge's May 25, 2010 Order filed on June 10, 2010. The Court has conducted a de novo review of those matters to which Objections have been stated in writing. Having completed its de novo review, the Court finds as follows:

         With respect to the Magistrate Judge's Order of April 22, 2010, which denied Plaintiff's discovery motion, none of Plaintiff's assertions warrant reconsideration, because the April 22, 2010 Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The Magistrate Judge's Order of May 25, 2010, was correct, because Plaintiff may not amend the Third Amended Complaint to reinstate claims that earlier were dismissed on the ground that they were unexhausted when this case was filed. Thus, reconsideration of the March 25, 2010 Order also is not warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions filed on May 27, 2010, and on June 10, 2010, are DENIED.

         The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report, and the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Deputy Sheriff Sanchez is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant County of Los Angeles is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) the Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and (4) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

         LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Summaries of

Smith v. Los Angeles County

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 19, 2010
CV 07-7028-VAP (MAN) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2010)
Case details for

Smith v. Los Angeles County

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN B. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jun 19, 2010

Citations

CV 07-7028-VAP (MAN) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2010)

Citing Cases

Tombs v. Rackly

"Even if plaintiff believed that there was a sexual aspect to the search, more is needed." Smith v. Los…

Nuriddin v. Estrella

Even if Plaintiff believed there was a sexual aspect to the search, more is needed. See Berryhill v. Schriro,…