Latrivia E. Harris v. Sacramento Police Department

E.D. California

Latrivia E. Harris v. Sacramento Police Department

DecidedSeptember 29, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01398

StatusUnknown

This text of Latrivia E. Harris v. Sacramento Police Department (Latrivia E. Harris v. Sacramento Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Latrivia E. Harris v. Sacramento Police Department, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LATRIVIA E. HARRIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-01398-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 22, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No 21 objections were filed.1 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 25 26 1 Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff Latrivia E. Harris’s (“Plaintiff”) copy of 27 the findings and recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of her current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 28 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 2 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 3 the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2025 (ECF No. 5) are adopted in 6 full. 7 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply 8 with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court’s May 23, 2025 9 order. See ECF No. 3. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Date: September 26, 2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LATRIVIA E. HARRIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-01398-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 22, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No 21 objections were filed.1 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 25 26 1 Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff Latrivia E. Harris’s (“Plaintiff”) copy of 27 the findings and recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of her current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 28 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 2 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 3 the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2025 (ECF No. 5) are adopted in 6 full. 7 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply 8 with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court’s May 23, 2025 9 order. See ECF No. 3. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Date: September 26, 2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Latrivia E. Harris v. Sacramento Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latrivia-e-harris-v-sacramento-police-department-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack