Ingram v. Sacramento Police Department et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/22/09 ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations in full. Dfts' 29 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED except for the claim against dft Villegas under the Fourth Amendment for excessive force during an investigatory stop. Dft Sacramento Police Department and Miller are DISMISSED. (Engbretson, K.)

Download PDF
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 1 vs. ANDREW MILLER, et al., Defendants. / The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). On October 20, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHADERICK INGRAM, Plaintiff, No. CIV 09-1562 GEB KJM 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 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 20, 2009 are adopted in full; 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 29) is granted except for the claim against defendant Villegas under the Fourth Amendment for excessive force during an investigatory stop; and 3. Defendant Sacramento Police Department and Miller are dismissed. Dated: December 22, 2009 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 2

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?