Lipsey v. Davey, et al.
Filing
40
ORDER ADOPTING 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/04/2019. Twenty-Day Deadline. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 1:17-cv-01706-DAD-SAB
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND
RANDOLPH,
(Doc. Nos. 28, 32)
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
18
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
19
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On November 28, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
21
recommendations, recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claim
22
under the Bane Act be granted for failure to comply with the California Government Claims Act.
23
(Doc. No. 32.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained
24
notice that any objections were due within twenty-one days after service. (Id. at 8.) On
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
1
1
December 17, 2018, plaintiff filed objections, and defendant filed a response on December 28,
2
2018. (Doc. Nos. 33, 34.)1
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
4
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
5
including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
6
by the record and proper analysis.
7
In his objections, plaintiff makes the following four arguments regarding why this court
8
should decline to adopt the findings and recommendations: (1) the court should exercise its
9
discretion to permit plaintiff to file a late claim; (2) plaintiff’s six-month window in which to file
10
a claim did not begin to run until he had exhausted his administrative remedies; (3) plaintiff has
11
substantially complied with the statutory requirements, which is sufficient; and (4) plaintiff’s
12
amended claim, filed on September 11, 2018, renders his claim timely. However, as pointed out
13
in defendant’s response to plaintiff’s objections, the findings and recommendations expressly
14
considered and rejected each of these arguments. The court finds no error in the magistrate
15
judge’s analysis.
16
Accordingly,
17
1.
18
adopted in full;
19
2.
20
Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s California Bane Act claim for failure to
comply with the California Government Claims Act (Doc. No. 28) is granted; and
21
3.
22
23
The finding and recommendations issued on November 28, 2018 (Doc. No. 32) are
Defendant shall file an answer to the complaint within twenty (20) days from the
date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
April 4, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
Subsequently, plaintiff has filed a “request for judicial notice before judgment” (Doc. No. 35),
as well as two additional filing styled as replies. (Doc. Nos. 37, 38.)
2
1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?