Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02673/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02673-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTA RICCI,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

GIA SAVOY, DAVID CHERNOW, and

Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-2673-MCE-EFB PS

ORDER

On March 4, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 75. Plaintiff filed objections 

on March 18, 2020, and they were considered by the undersigned. ECF No. 76.

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

Case 2:17-cv-02673-MCE-EFB Document 77 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 4, 2020 (ECF No. 75), are

ADOPTED in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED and plaintiff’s second

amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 

3. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend the complaint (ECF Nos. 51, 59, 66) are

DENIED; 

4. Defendants’ motions to strike plaintiff’s third and fourth amended complaints (ECF

Nos. 53 & 65) are DENIED as moot; 

5. Plaintiff’s motions to vacate judgment (ECF Nos. 60, 73) are DENIED; and

6. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2020 

Case 2:17-cv-02673-MCE-EFB Document 77 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2