Hogue v. Sacramento Police Department
Filing
22
ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 09/30/19 GRANTING defendant City of Sacramento's 17 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by unreasonable search and seizure and his state law negligence claim are DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendant City of Sacramento. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRIAN HOGUE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-0434-MCE-EFB P
v.
ORDER
SACRAMENTO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
19
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 30, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
21
22
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
23
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 21. Neither party
24
has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
25
26
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
27
ORDERED that:
28
///
1
1
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2019 (ECF No. 21), are ADOPTED
IN FULL;
3
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED; and
4
3. Plaintiff’s claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by unreasonable
5
search and seizure and his state law negligence claim are DISMISSED without prejudice as to
6
defendant City of Sacramento.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2019
9
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?