NEWDOW et al v. ROBERTS et al

Filing 13

Memorandum in opposition to re 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JOHN ROBERTS, JR, JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, ARMED FORCES INAUGURAL COMMITTEE, RICHARD J. ROWE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7: Groppel Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 8: Minear Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad)

Download PDF
_________________________________________________________________________________ _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 Plaintiff, proceedingpro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was 17 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), 18 On July 18, 2001, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 whichwere served on all parties and whichcontained notice to all parties that any objections to 20 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. On August 2, 2001, plaintiff 21 filed a request for extension of time to file his objections. Good cause appearing, this request 22 ~s granted. 23 Both parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this court has conducteda de novo review of this case. Havingcarefully reviewed the entire 26 ORDER VS. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REV. DR. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-218 LKKGGHPS GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, _________________________________________________________________________________ _ 1 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations be supported by the record and by to proper analysis. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 new218jo the complaint. DATED: September~_o~._, 2001. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: I. Plaintiff's August2, 2001, motionfor an extension of time to file his objections is granted; 2. The findings and recommendations filed July 18, 2001, are adopted in full; 3. Defendant's May4, 2001, motion to dismiss is granted insofar as plaintiff complains about permitting a chaplain (or the President) from makingany prayer at the Presidential inauguration. However. motion is denied insofar as plaintiff is attacking the the specifics of the prayer as a violation of the EstablishmentClause; 4. Within twenty days of the date of this order defendant shall file an answerto _______________________________________________________________________________ ___ ljr States District Court for the Eastern District of California September 28, 2001 United * * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ** 2:01-cv-00218 Newdow Bush I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. of That on September 28, 2001, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office, or, pursuant to prior authorization by counsel, via facsimile. Michael A Newdow First Amendmist Church PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 Kristin Sudhoff Door United States Attorney 501 I Street Suite I0-I00 Sacramento, CA 95814 of True Science Jack BY: L~~gner, D~erk Clerk _______________________________________________________________________________ ___ Case 1:04-cv-02208-JDB Document 5-8 Filed 01/07/2005 Page 34 of 34 CaseNo: 2:01-cv-218 Document No: 21, 1 Copy Printed: Sep, 28, 2001 01:43 PM Kristin SudhoffDoor United States Attorney 501 I Street Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814

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?