From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wardlaw v. Marino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 4, 2018
Case No. 2:16-cv-03840-JAK-KES (C.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 2:16-cv-03840-JAK-KES

09-04-2018

DEREK WARDLAW, Plaintiff, v. MARINO, et al., Defendant.


JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Court's Order Accepting the Amended Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,

IT IS ADJUDGED that Defendants Ming Chen and Juan Merino's (the "Officer Defendants") motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 82) is GRANTED. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to those Defendants. Plaintiff may seek to renew the claims if he can timely exhaust his administrative remedies, and fails to receive the requested relief.

IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that the Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to the Defendants identified as "PTS, LLC (Workers, Names Unknown)" due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. DATED: September 4, 2018

/s/_________

JOHN A. KRONSTADT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Wardlaw v. Marino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 4, 2018
Case No. 2:16-cv-03840-JAK-KES (C.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2018)
Case details for

Wardlaw v. Marino

Case Details

Full title:DEREK WARDLAW, Plaintiff, v. MARINO, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 4, 2018

Citations

Case No. 2:16-cv-03840-JAK-KES (C.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2018)