Ashish Acharjee v. Sheriff Department of Riverside County et al

Filing 76

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Hernan D. Vera for NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Entire Action 53 , Report and Recommendation (Issued), 73 . IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and (3) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice and without leave to amend. (vam)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ASHISH ACHARJEE,

12

v.

13
14
15

Plaintiff,

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, et al.,

Case No. 5:23-cv-00112-HDV (MAR)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

16
17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the operative First

19
20

Amended Complaint, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation

21

(“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in

22

a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been

23

made.

24

The Report recommends the grant of Defendants’ motion for summary

25

judgment for Plaintiff’s claims of constitutional violations during his criminal

26

proceeding. (ECF No. 73.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s objections to the

27

Report (ECF No. 74) do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or

28

recommendations.

1

Plaintiff objects that the Report reflects abuse of judicial authority, legal

2

error, and judicial bias. (ECF No. 74 at 2-4.) This vague objection is not

3

responsive to the Report.

4

Plaintiff objects that Defendants’ attorney filed a declaration with “wrong

5

statements” about meeting and conferring with Plaintiff about a Stipulated

6

Protective Order. (ECF No. 74 at 4-5 (citing ECF No. 43).) This vague objection

7

also is not responsive to the Report.

8

Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge issued an order striking his motion

9

to compel. (ECF No. 74 at 5 (citing ECF No. 46).) The Court concurs with the

10

Magistrate Judge’s order striking the motion. The motion did not have hearing

11

information and violated multiple local rules. (ECF No. 46 (citing ECF No. 40).)

12

Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his motion for a

13

protective order. (ECF No. 74 at 5.) The Court concurs with the Magistrate

14

Judge’s denial of the motion. It was not clear what Plaintiff was requesting in the

15

motion and, to the extent that any requests could be gleaned from the motion, relief

16

was not warranted. (ECF No. 39 (citing ECF No. 30).)

17

Plaintiff objects that he was not able to retrieve some of the filings on

18

PACER. (ECF No. 74 at 6.) Defendants point out that the filings are under seal on

19

PACER to prevent disclosure of personally identifying information of the victim

20

and Plaintiff’s son. (ECF No. 75.) Moreover, Plaintiff had access to all the filings

21

in preparation for his Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

22

Plaintiff objects that Defendants’ attorneys engaged in ex parte

23

communications with the Judges assigned to this case. (ECF No. 74 at 6-7.) This

24

objection is unsupported.

25

Plaintiff objects that Defendants’ attorney “made material statements on

26

behalf of the court and magistrate judge[.]” (ECF No. 74 at 7.) This objection also

27

is unsupported.

28

In sum, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
2

1

IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted; (2)

2

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and (3) Judgment shall be

3

entered dismissing this action with prejudice and without leave to amend.

4
5

DATED: September 25, 2024

6
7
8

___________________________________
HERNÁN D. VERA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3