Cochran v. Sherman et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Various Motions 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 27 , 44 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/30/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-01388-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.
S. SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
VARIOUS MOTIONS
(Doc. Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 44)

16
17

Plaintiff Billy Cochran is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint

19

against defendants S. Sherman and J. Barba for the alleged violation of plaintiff’s First

20

Amendment rights based upon the denial of his requested name change for religious purposes.

21

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

On July 24, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

24

(Doc. No. 44) recommending that: (1) plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the case file, filed on

25

October 12, 2016 (Doc. No. 16), be denied; (2) defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on November

26

9, 2016 (Doc. No. 19), be denied as moot; (3) plaintiff’s motions to defer a ruling and to permit

27

discovery, filed on November 22, 2016 (Doc. No. 20), and March 8, 2017 (Doc. No. 27), be

28

denied as moot; (4) plaintiff’s motion requesting documents, filed on November 22, 2016 (Doc.
1

1

No. 21), be denied as moot; and (5) plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on February

2

6, 2017 (Doc No. 22), be denied as premature.

3

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

4

recommendations within 30 days. (Doc. No. 44.) The 30-day time period has expired and, to

5

date, neither party has filed objections.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

7

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully considered the entire

8

file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

9

and proper analysis.

10

Given the foregoing:

11

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 24, 2017 (Doc. No. 44) are adopted

12

in full;

13

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the case file (Doc. No. 16) is denied;

14

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is denied;

15

4. Plaintiff’s motion to defer a ruling and permit discovery (Doc. Nos. 20, 27) is denied;

16

5. Plaintiff’s motion requesting documents (Doc. No. 21) is denied; and

17

6. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22) is denied.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2