Hadnot v. Riverside County Sheriff's Dept., EDCV 18-0423-JGB (JEM). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20191230337
Visitors: 25
Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JESUS G. BERNAL , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed Objections, and the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JESUS G. BERNAL , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed Objections, and the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations ..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JESUS G. BERNAL, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed Objections, and the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.1
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants Sheriff's Department and Doshier and McNamara in their official capacities on Plaintiff's federal civil rights claims; (2) summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants Doshier and McNamara in their individual capacities on Plaintiff's federal civil rights claims; (3) Plaintiffs federal civil rights claims against the Doe Defendants are dismissed with prejudice; (4) summary judgment is granted in favor of all Defendants on Plaintiffs negligence claims; (5) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied; and (6) judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.
FootNotes
1. On November 22, 2019, after Plaintiff had filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for reply had expired, he filed an additional document entitled "Plaintiff's Request for Exten[s]ion of Time to Obtain Evidence That Will Show the Plaintiff Attempted to Notif[y] the Def[e]ndant That He Was Going to Sue for Lack of Proper Medical Care; Qu[a]lif[y]ing as Extraordinary Circumstances as to Not Ex[]pose the Plaintiff to Prejudice" ("Request"). In his Request, Plaintiff asks the Court to delay ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment so that he can obtain a copy of a government claim form he allegedly submitted at an unspecified time. Plaintiffs Request is untimely and fails to establish that a delay is warranted or appropriate. Accordingly, the Request is denied.
Source: Leagle
