Salat v. Pirotto

Full title: IMHOTEP SALAT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL PIROTTO, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 12, 2015

2:14-cv-01468 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015)

Opinion

IMHOTEP SALAT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL PIROTTO, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-01468 MCE AC United States District Court, E.D. California. February 12, 2015

          ORDER

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         Plaintiff, 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 January 13, 2015, 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. 41. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

         The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The findings and recommendations filed January 13, 2015, ECF No. 41, are adopted in full; and

         2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24, is granted without leave to amend as to plaintiff's claims for violation of the Federal Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. § 3400 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Defendant Pirotto's investigation of D & I Special Care Services, LLC and D & I Special Care Services.