Opinion
No. CIV S-07-1546 FCD DAD PS.
March 25, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).
On February 19, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. On March 6, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. The magistrate judge issued an order noting the inapplicability of Rule 52, construing the motion as plaintiffs' objections to the findings and recommendations, and granting defendants ten days to file any replies. Plaintiffs have filed a request for reconsideration of the latter order.
Local Rule 72-303(f) applies to the magistrate judge's order regarding plaintiffs' motion to amend findings. The rule provides that a magistrate judge's order shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The ruling is therefore affirmed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Upon reconsideration pursuant to plaintiffs' request (#63) filed March 24, 2008, the order of the magistrate judge filed March 10, 2008, is affirmed;
2. The findings and recommendations (#60) filed February 19, 2008, are adopted in full;
3. The motion to dismiss (#11) filed August 27, 2007 by defendants Ventura County Superior Court, Michael D. Planet, Los Angeles County Superior Court, and John Clarke is granted, and all claims against these defendants are dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
4. Defendant Ritner's September 26, 2007 motion to dismiss (#37) is granted, and all claims against this defendant are dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for lack of capacity to be sued;
5. Defendant Coleman's September 28, 2007 motion to dismiss (#38) is granted, and all claims against this defendant are dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
6. All claims against defendant Davis are dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
7. All claims against defendant "United States District Court Eastern District of California (Kimberly J. Mueller as a U.S. District Judge)" are dismissed with prejudice because the defendant is entitled to immunity; and
8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for all defendants and close this case.