Brock v. Tuolumne County Sheriffs

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations to grant in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike 51 , 52 , 56 , 59 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/2020. 14-Day Deadline. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

DAVID LEE BROCK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
TUOLUMNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,

16

No. 1:17-cv-01610-NONE JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
(Docs. 51, 52, 56, 59)
FOURTEEN-ONE-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

20

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

21

Local Rule 302.

22

On September 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

23

recommendations recommending that defendants’ June 11, 2020 motion to dismiss (Doc. 51) and

24

plaintiff’s June 30, 2020 motion to strike (Doc. 52) be denied as moot and that defendants’ July

25

29, 2020 motion to dismiss (Doc. 56) be granted in part with plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim

26

being allowed to proceed against defendants Sergeant Ransom, Sergeant McNeil, and the Doe

27

Defendant, plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim against Deputy Smith being dismissed with

28

1

prejudice, plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim against Deputy Stallings, Deputy Hurtado, Deputy

2

Long, Deputy Richards, and Deputy Lee being dismissed without prejudice, and defendants’

3

motion to strike being denied as moot. Those findings and recommendations were served on all

4

parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. No

5

objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

6

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

7

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

8

ORDERED that:

9
10
11
12
13

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 59), are
adopted in full; and
2. Defendants’ June 11, 2020 motion to dismiss (Doc. 51) and plaintiff’s June 30, 2020
motion to strike (Doc. 52) are denied as moot;
3. Defendants’ July 29, 2020 motion to dismiss (Doc. 56) is granted in part as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim shall proceed against Sergeant Ransom,

14
15

Sergeant McNeil, and the Doe Defendant;
b. Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim against Deputy Smith is dismissed with

16
17

prejudice;
c. Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim against Deputy Stallings, Deputy Hurtado,

18
19

Deputy Long, Deputy Richards, and Deputy Lee is dismissed without prejudice;
d. Defendants’ motion to strike is denied as moot; and

20
21

4. Defendants shall file an answer to plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint within

22

fourteen days from the date of this order.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
Dated:
25

October 13, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2