Lawson v. Tehama County, 2:17-cv-01276-TLN-GGH. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180824c44
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff appears in this action pro se. On April 10, 2018 the magistrate judge issued an Order and Findings and Recommendations which dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims and retained others. (ECF No. 41.) In that Order, the magistrate judge gave the parties 21 days to file written objections and warned that the failure to do so could waive their right to appeal the District Court's order. Neither party filed objections. In accordance with the provi
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff appears in this action pro se. On April 10, 2018 the magistrate judge issued an Order and Findings and Recommendations which dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims and retained others. (ECF No. 41.) In that Order, the magistrate judge gave the parties 21 days to file written objections and warned that the failure to do so could waive their right to appeal the District Court's order. Neither party filed objections. In accordance with the provis..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff appears in this action pro se. On April 10, 2018 the magistrate judge issued an Order and Findings and Recommendations which dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims and retained others. (ECF No. 41.) In that Order, the magistrate judge gave the parties 21 days to file written objections and warned that the failure to do so could waive their right to appeal the District Court's order. Neither party filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file and the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations in full.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is dismissed from this action;
2. The action shall proceed on the equal protection/substantive due process claim against the county Defendants and the trespass claim against Defendant Meyers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
