Lull v. County of Sacramento, 2:18-cv-1020-MCE-EFB PS. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191002h11
Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER MORRISON E. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On September 10, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Ac
Summary: ORDER MORRISON E. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On September 10, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Acc..
More
ORDER
MORRISON E. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
On September 10, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.
The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 10, 2019, (ECF No. 26) are ADOPTED;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
a. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection claims, and these claims are dismissed without leave to amend; and
b. Defendants' motion is DENIED as to plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
