Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01762-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

RONALD YATES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAMMOTH COMMUNITY WATER 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1762 WBS CKD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action in propria persona. The action was removed from 

state court. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 

302(c).

On November 5, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Objections to the 

findings and recommendations have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court adopts the magistrate judge’s analysis only with respect to dismissal of plaintiff’s federal 

claim, and will dismiss that claim with prejudice. In his Opposition to the findings and 

Case 2:15-cv-01762-WBS-CKD Document 17 Filed 12/07/15 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

recommendations, plaintiff states that he no longer wishes to pursue his federal claim, so no leave 

to amend need be given with respect to that claim. Since remaining state law claims will be 

remanded to the state court for the reasons recommended by the magistrate judge, it would be 

inappropriate for this court to rule on the sufficiency of them or to give plaintiff leave to amend 

one of those claims in this court. That will be for the state court to decide on remand.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) 

is granted with respect to plaintiff’s only federal claim; the court declines to exercise jurisdiction 

over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and this action is hereby 

REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Mono.

Dated: December 4, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01762-WBS-CKD Document 17 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 2