Perrotte v. Johnson et al

Filing 163

ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's 162 Objections to 157 Findings and Recommendations to the July 10, 2018, Findings and Recommendations, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/25/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY P. PERROTTE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
STACEY JOHNSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE JULY 10, 2018,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
[ECF Nos. 157, 162]

Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On July 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, recommending

20

that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s

21

retaliation claim against Defendant Johnson for placement of a false CDCR Form 128-B in Plaintiff’s

22

central file and placement in the administrative security housing unit. (ECF No. 157.) It was further

23

recommended that all other claims against Defendant Johnson and Defendant LeFlore be dismissed

24

from the action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (Id.) The

25

Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to

26

be filed within thirty days. (Id.)

27

///

28

///
1

1

Plaintiff did not file objections within the thirty-day time frame. On September 24, 2018, the

2

Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full. (ECF No. 161.) On this same date, but after the

3

order adopting was placed on the docket, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and

4

Recommendations, self-dated by Plaintiff on September 15, 2018. (ECF No. 162.)

5

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and confirms the September 24, 2018 order

6

adopting the Findings and Recommendations in full. In his objections, Plaintiff largely repeats the

7

arguments previously presented in his opposition and expresses his disagreement with the July 10,

8

2018 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the

9

Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court’s September 24, 2018 order adopting the

10

Findings and Recommendations remains the law of this case.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 25, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2