Lull v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/28/19 ADOPTING 34 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 24 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are STRICKEN and the motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim and Bane Act claim against Defendant Stewart. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LULL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-01211-TLN-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CORY
STEWART, MICHAEL DOANE, and
DOES 1 to 100,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On March 4, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

19

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

20

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 34.) Defendant Stewart filed

21

objections on March 18, 2019. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff filed objections on March 19, 2019.

22

(ECF No. 36.)

23

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

24

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

25

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

26

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

27

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

28

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
1

1

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

2

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

3

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full.

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

5

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 4, 2019, are adopted;

6

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24)

7
8
9
10

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
3. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (causes of
action one and two) are stricken; and
4. The Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Bane

11

Act claim against Defendant Stewart.

12

Dated: March 28, 2019

13
14
15
16

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2