Ceasar v. Aguirre

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses be Granted in Part and Denied in Part signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/23/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER D. CEASAR,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

E. AGUIRRE,

15

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00873-LJO-EPG
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES BE GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART
[ECF Nos. 22, 27, 32]

16
17
18

Walter D. Ceasar, III (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11). This

20

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

21

and Local Rule 302.

22

On March 23, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

23

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 22) be granted in part

24

and denied in part (ECF No. 27). This was served on the parties that same day and contained

25

notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.)

26

objections was extended to May 10, 2017. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff timely filed objections (ECF

27

No. 31), but Defendant did not object.

28

The deadline for

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted
1

1

a de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that

2

the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 23, 2017 (ECF No. 27), are

5

adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 21) is

6
7

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as to the Second, Fourth, and Sixth

8
9

Affirmative Defenses with leave to amend within 14 days of this order;
b. Plaintiff’s is GRANTED as to the First, Eighth, and Ninth Affirmative

10
11

Defenses without leave to amend.

12

c. The Motion is DENIED as to the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Affirmative

13

Defenses.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 23, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

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