Lull v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/06/2020 GRANTING 49 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff is permitted to proceed on the second amended complaint's Fourth Amendment claim. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LULL,

12
13
14
15
16

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

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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

17
18

Plaintiff Christopher Lull (“Plaintiff”), an individual proceeding pro se, has filed this civil

19

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

21

On September 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

22

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

23

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 61.) Defendant Cory

24

Stewart (“Defendant”) filed objections on September 25, 2020 (ECF No. 62), and they were

25

considered by the undersigned.

26

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

27

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

28

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

8

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2020 (ECF No. 61),

9

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

10

2. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED; and

11

3. Plaintiff is permitted to proceed on the second amended complaint’s Fourth

12
13
14

Amendment claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 6, 2020

15
16
17
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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