Krystal Jasmin v. Santa Monica Police Department et al

Filing 154

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin for Motions 106 , 107 , Requests 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 126 , 127 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Motions (Dkt. 106, 107) are DENIED; 2. The Related Requests (Dkt. 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 127) are DENIED. (see document for further details) (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11

KRYSTAL JASMIN,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14
15

SANTA MONICA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 16-06999-FMO (JDE)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and this Court’s referral order (Dkt. 109), the
Court has reviewed the relevant filings in this action, including:
a)

Plaintiff Krystal Jasmin’s “Motion Per Circuit Rule 27 10. Motions for

21

Reconsideration” (Dkt. 106) and a Motion to Set Aside Judgement and

22

Order (Dkt. 107)—collectively, “Motions”;

23

b)

Defendants’ objections to the Motions (Dkt. 117);

24

c)

Plaintiff’s Requests to Change the Hearing Date for the Motions (Dkt.

25

112, 113), Plaintiff’s “Request for Stipulations per Federal Rules of Civil

26

Procedure 16” (Dkt. 114, “Request for Stipulations”), Plaintiff’s further

27

motion for hearing on the Motions and the Request for Stipulations (Dkt.

28

115), Plaintiff’s request to film the hearings before the assigned magistrate

1

judge (Dkt. 118), Plaintiff’s two requests to film and change the hearing

2

date for the Motions before this Court (Dkt. 120, 121), Plaintiff’s

3

“Revised” Request for Stipulations and Request for Hearing (Dkt. 122),

4

Plaintiff’s two requests to file documents electronically (Dkt. 119, 126),

5

and Plaintiff’s additional request for hearing on the Motions and the

6

Request for Stipulations (Dkt. 127)—collectively, Plaintiff’s requests in

7

this paragraph are referred to herein as “the Related Requests”;

8

d)

(Dkt. 125, “R&R”);

9
10

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

e)

Plaintiff’s “Recusal Request and Objection to R&R dated May 9, 2019 as

11

Vague and Ambiguous, and Unfairly Prejudicial” (Dkt. 128), a portion of

12

which, reflecting Plaintiff’s “recusal request,” having been referred to and

13

denied by the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge (see

14

Dkt. 130, 131); and

15

f)

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to R&R (Dkt. 132).
The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the R&R

16
17

to which objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and

18

recommendation of the magistrate judge.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

19
20

1.

The Motions (Dkt. 106, 107) are DENIED;

21

2.

The Related Requests (Dkt. 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121,

22
23
24

122, 126, 127) are DENIED.
Dated: September 11, 2019

25

____________/s/_____________
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2