Riley v. Tallerico et al

Filing 84

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Objections 78 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/19/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
SHANNON RILEY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01189-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS
(ECF NO. 78)

14
TALLERICO and YERRY,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20

Shannon Riley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

On December 8, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean issued findings and

22

recommendations, recommending that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for

23

Plaintiff’s claim against Officer Yerry for violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to

24

equal protection related to the May 16, 2015 incident, his claim for retaliation in violation of the

25

First Amendment against Officers Yerry and Trotter regarding their cell search, his claim against

26

Defendant Tallerico for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and his claims against

27

Officer Yerry for violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 53, p. 10).

28

On February 7, 2018, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations in part, and
1

1

allowed this action to proceed on Plaintiff’s “claim against Officer Yerry for violation of

2

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection related to the May 16, 2015 incident,

3

his claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Officer Yerry regarding the

4

cell search, his claim against Defendant Tallerico for retaliation in violation of the First

5

Amendment, and his claims against Officer Yerry for violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (ECF

6

No. 62, pgs. 3-4). All other claims and defendants were dismissed. (Id. at 4).

7

On February 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order

8

adopting the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 66). On May 9, 2018, this Court denied

9

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 71).

10

On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed “Ex Parte Objection to Magistrate Ruling, (ECF No. 71),

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).” (ECF No. 78). Plaintiff states that he objects to the magistrate judge’s

12

ruling. However, it was this Court that denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, not the

13
14
15
16
17

assigned magistrate judge. Accordingly, objections pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
are not appropriate.

Moreover, as Plaintiff himself states in his objections, he is making

arguments to this Court that he has already made. (Id. at 1).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
Dated: June 19, 2018
19

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2