Hardy v. Sisson et al

Filing 67

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/29/2017 ADOPTING IN FULL 48 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 39 Motion to Strike; STRIKING the defendant's second affirmative defense for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KRISTIN HARDY, 13 No. 2:13-cv-2514-GEB-CMK Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 D. SISSON, et al., ORDER 16 Defendant. 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 19 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern 20 District of California local rules. On November 10, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 22 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 23 objections within a specified time. Objections to the findings and recommendations have been 24 filed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 26 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 27 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 10, 2016, are adopted in 3 4 5 6 7 full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses (Doc. 30) is granted in part and denied in part; 3. Defendant’s second affirmative defense for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is stricken; and 8 4. No other affirmative defense is stricken. 9 Dated: September 29, 2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?