Sanders v. Los Angeles County, CV 15-00907 AG (RAO). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20200108639
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint; the motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Charlton Sanders ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Shuster, Gautt, Wolf, Baca, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (collectively, "Defendants"); Plaintiff's Objections to the Report; Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Objections; all of the o
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint; the motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Charlton Sanders ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Shuster, Gautt, Wolf, Baca, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (collectively, "Defendants"); Plaintiff's Objections to the Report; Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Objections; all of the ot..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANDREW J. GUILFORD, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint; the motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Charlton Sanders ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Shuster, Gautt, Wolf, Baca, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (collectively, "Defendants"); Plaintiff's Objections to the Report; Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Objections; all of the other records and files herein; and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"). Further, the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's Objections and hereby accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;
(2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Baca;
(3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the remaining claims; and
(4) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Baca are dismissed with prejudice.
Source: Leagle
