FOY v. VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2:11-cv-3262-MCE-CMK-P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150326a33
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On March 3, 2015, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. No objecti
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On March 3, 2015, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. No objectio..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On March 3, 2015, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendant City of Vallejo's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 73) is GRANTED;
3. Defendant Williams' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 72) is DENIED;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant City of Vallejo only; and
5. This action shall continue as to Defendants Williams, Bauer, Huff, Whitney, and Yates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
