Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WILLIAM J WHITSITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEDY HOLMES STAFFING SERVS., et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0117 MCE AC

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On October 7, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff 

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 34. Defendants San Joaquin 

County WorkNet and Mike Sansone have also filed an opposition to plaintiff’s objections. ECF 

No. 35.

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 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 36 Filed 12/05/14 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

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 7, 2014, are adopted in full; and

2. WorkNet’s June 30, 2014, motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is granted as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s claim(s) against defendant Mark Sansone under the ADEA are 

dismissed with prejudice;

b. Plaintiff’s claims against WorkNet and non-ADEA claims against Sansone are 

dismissed with leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff’s claim(s) under the ADEA against “Kathleen” are dismissed sua sponte

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), with prejudice; and

4. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the non-moving defendants are dismissed sua 

sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), with leave to amend.

Dated: December 4, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 36 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 2