Edward B. Spencer v. Stuart Sherman, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2026
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01551
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD B. SPENCER, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01551 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART 13 v. AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 14 STUART SHERMAN, et al., (Docs. 33, 38) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Edward B. Spencer seeks to hold Defendant liable for violations of his civil rights. This 18 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302. 20 On December 17, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and 21 Recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses be 22 granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 38.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended the 23 motion be: (1) granted as to the second and fifth affirmative defenses, with leave to amend; (2) 24 granted as to the fourth affirmative defense, without leave to amend; (3) and denied as to the first 25 and third affirmative defenses; and (4) that Defendant be directed to file an amended answer 26 within 30 days. (Id. at 3-9.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties 27 and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 9.) The Court also advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in a waiver of 1 | rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No 2 | objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has performed a de novo review of this 4 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 5 | Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2025 (Doc. 38) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. Plaintiffs motion to strike is GRANTED as to the second and fifth affirmative 9 defenses, with leave to amend. 10 3. Plaintiffs motion to strike is GRANTED as to the fourth affirmative defense, without 11 leave to amend. 12 4. Plaintiffs motion to strike is DENIED as to the first and third affirmative defenses. 13 5. Defendant SHALL file an amended answer to the operative complaint within thirty 14 (30) days of the date of this order. 15 6. The action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _January 22, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28