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.)
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?