Ingram v. Sacramento City Police Department et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/23/10 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 61 are ADOPTED; pltf's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Carlos, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 __________________________________/ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 On November 23, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on November 30, 2009, and they were considered by the undersigned. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are 1 ORDER vs. SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER GARY DAHL #672, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHADERICK A. INGRAM, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2547 LKK EFB PS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 23, 2009, are ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dckt. No. 53, is denied. DATED: February 23, 2010.

2