Thompson v. Gomez et al

Filing 100

ORDER adopting FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Strike Surreply and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 84 , 94 , 99 signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/20/2022. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK SHANE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

A. GOMEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00125-JLT-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART
AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE SURREPLY AND
GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Docs. 84, 94, 99)

16
17

The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant the

18

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) as to Plaintiff’s excessive force and failure

19

to intervene claims against Defendant Johnson arising from the escort1. The magistrate judge also

20

recommended the court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in all other respects, due

21

to the existence of material disputed facts as to the need, degree, and motivation for the extent of

22

the force used during the takedown incident. The magistrate judge also recommended the court

23

grant the motion to strike as to the unauthorized surreply (Doc. 99) but to deny it as to Plaintiff’s

24

evidence addendum (Docs. 92, 93).
The court granted the parties 21 days to object to the findings and recommendations.

25
26

(Doc. 99 at 27.) In addition, the court advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within

27

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

28

1

Plaintiff does not oppose the court granting the motion to this extent.
1

1

772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No

2

objections were filed, and the time to do so has expired.

3

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the

4

case. The court finds that the recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.

5

Thus, the Court ORDERS:

6

1.

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply (Doc. 94) is GRANTED in part

7

and DENIED in part as follows:

8

a.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s surreply (Doc. 91).

9

b.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s evidence addendum (Docs.

10

92, 93).

11

c.

12
13

Plaintiff’s unauthorized surreply to the motion for summary judgment (Doc.
91) is STRICKEN.

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) is GRANTED in part and

14

DENIED in part as follows:

15

a.

16

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s excessive force and
failure to intervene claim against Johnson arising from the escort.

17

b.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED in all other respects.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 20, 2022

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2