Baker v. Macomber et al
Filing
40
ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/15/16 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 5/3/16 33 are ADOPTED in full, with the exception that the Court now finds that Defendant complied with the safe harbor/mandatory notice procedures set forth in Rule 11, FRCP. Defendant's Motion for terminating sactions 29 is DENIED. And this case is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial proceedings.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIMOTHY RAY BAKER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-0248 GEB AC P
v.
ORDER
J. MACOMBER, et al.,
Defendants.
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 May 3, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
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
28
1
1
analysis.1
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 3, 2016, are adopted in full, with the
4
exception that the court now finds that defendant complied with the safe harbor/mandatory notice
5
procedures set forth in Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6
2. Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions, ECF No. 29, is denied; and
7
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial
8
proceedings.
9
Dated: June 15, 2016
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
However, this court sustains defendant’s objection to the magistrate judge’s finding that
defendant failed to comply with the safe harbor/mandatory notice procedures of Rule 11, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant’s motion to dismiss does aver, albeit in passing, that
defendant complied those procedures. See ECF No. 29-1 at 15-6. Nevertheless, such compliance
notwithstanding, the magistrate judge appropriately found that plaintiff’s inclusion of the
contested Form 7219 as an exhibit to his complaint, together with the other circumstances
asserted by defendant, fail to demonstrate objective bad faith by plaintiff warranting the dismissal
of this action.
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?