Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in this action against Los Rios Community College District. The court dismissed all claims other than a specified retaliation claim as untimely, partially granted the defendant’s motion to strike, and referred the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard of review governs the district court's review of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations?
- Whether claims other than the retaliation claim set forth in charge 555-2020-01236 were untimely and should be dismissed without leave to amend.
- Whether portions of the First Amended Complaint, including its addendum and demands for termination of other employees and enforcement of state-court orders, should be stricken.
- Whether the requests under the heading "Assurances and Preventative Measures" could theoretically support injunctive relief.
Holdings
- The district court presumes the magistrate judge's findings of fact correct and reviews the magistrate judge's conclusions of law de novo.
- All claims other than the retaliation claim set forth in charge 555-2020-01236 were dismissed as untimely, without leave to amend.
- The addendum portion of the First Amended Complaint and the portions of the statement of demands seeking termination of other employees and enforcement of state-court orders were stricken, while the motion to strike was denied as to the requests under "Assurances and Preventative Measures."
Key quotations
“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims, including a retaliation claim identified by charge number 555-2020-01236, and seeking various forms of relief. Defendant moved to dismiss and to strike portions of the amended complaint. The district court concluded that all claims other than the specified retaliation claim were untimely, while allowing that claim to proceed, and struck the complaint's addendum and certain demands for termination of other employees and enforcement of state-court orders.
Procedural history
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on May 20, 2025, and plaintiff filed objections on May 27, 2025. The district court adopted the findings and recommendations, granted defendant's motion to dismiss in part, granted the motion to strike in part, and referred the matter back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings.
Remand instructions
The matter was referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.