Doster v. Beard, 1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180223a39
Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Damien T. Doster is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 31, 2017, defendant Sarah Leon filed a motion to compel (Doc. No. 58), contending that plaintiff had failed to adequately comply wit
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Damien T. Doster is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 31, 2017, defendant Sarah Leon filed a motion to compel (Doc. No. 58), contending that plaintiff had failed to adequately comply with..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Damien T. Doster is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 31, 2017, defendant Sarah Leon filed a motion to compel (Doc. No. 58), contending that plaintiff had failed to adequately comply with prior court orders and requesting dismissal as an appropriate sanction. On January 29, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 68), recommending that defendant Leon's motion to compel be granted but that the request for dismissal as a sanction be denied. The parties were granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day deadline has expired, and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued January 29, 2018 (Doc. No. 68) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Leon's motion to compel (Doc. No. 58) is granted in part;
3. Plaintiff is required to serve defendant Leon with further responses to defendant Leon's interrogatories numbers 10 and 14, within thirty days;
4. Plaintiff is advised, pursuant to Local Rules 250.2, 250.3, and 250.4, not to file his discovery responses with the court;
5. Plaintiff is required to date and sign his responses to the interrogatories, under penalty of perjury;1 and
6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The responses must be dated and signed by plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to facts known by plaintiff, in substantially the following form: "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) . (Signature)."
Source: Leagle
