Gonzalez v. Department (Bureau) of Real Estate et al

Filing 223

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/17/2021 ADOPTING 216 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING 202 Motion for Sanctions; DENYING 211 Motion for Protective Order; DENYING 212 Motion for Extension; TERMINATING 197 198 Renewed Motions for Reconsideration; and DISMISSING the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) and 41(b). CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL GONZALEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-02448-TLN-KJN
ORDER

v.
KYLE THOMAS JONES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Daniel Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was

18

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

19

302.

20

On January 29, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21

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

22

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 216.) After two brief

23

extensions of time, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No.

24

221), which have been considered by the Court.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this

26

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

27

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see

28

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). Having reviewed the file under the
1

1

applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by

2

the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 216) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

5

2. Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions (ECF No. 202) is GRANTED;

6

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 211) is DENIED;

7

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Re-Notice the Renewed Motions for

8

Reconsideration (ECF No. 212) is DENIED and the Renewed Motions for

9

Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 197, 198) are TERMINATED;

10
11

5. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 37(b)(2) and 41(b); and

12

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: March 17, 2021

15
16
17
18
19

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2