Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

Filing 77

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/22/2017 ADOPTING 75 Findings and Recommendations in full, to the extent that they recommend denying all pending motion, with the exception of Defendant's 73 Motion to Strike Plainti ff's Opposition documents, which is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Plaintiff's 65 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , and 71 shall be STRICKEN. As to 57 and 66 Oppositions, Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED. Defendant's 52 Motion for Summary Judgment and 56 Request for Sanctions are DENIED. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-2064 MCE DB P

v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On December 30, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 75. Defendant

23

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 76.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24
25

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

26

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

27

analysis.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 30, 2016, are adopted in full, to the

3

extent that they recommend denying all pending motions, with the exception of Defendant’s

4

motion to strike Plaintiff’s opposition documents, ECF No. 73, which is GRANTED IN PART

5

and DENIED IN PART.1

6

2. Specifically, per the December 30, 2016 recommendation, Defendant’s motion to

7

strike plaintiff’s opposition documents filed August 8, 2016 (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED to the

8

extent that ECF Nos. 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71 shall be STRICKEN;

9
10
11
12

3. As to ECF No. 66, Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s opposition documents filed
August 8, 2016 (ECF No. 73) is DENIED;
4. Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s opposition filed April 11, 2016 (ECF No. 57) is
DENIED;

13

5. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) is DENIED; and

14

6. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions (ECF No. 56) is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: March 22, 2017

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

It appears that at pages six and seven, the Findings and Recommendations recommend
striking Plaintiff’s documents filed at ECF Nos. 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71, but denying
Defendant’s motion to strike with respect to ECF No. 66. In its conclusion, however, the
recommendation is to simply deny the motion to strike. This Court reads the Findings and
Recommendations to therefore recommend granting in part and denying in part that motion, and
adopts that recommendation in full, as further described in paragraphs two and three of this order.
2