Linsangan v. Guam Election Commission

D. Guam

Linsangan v. Guam Election Commission

District Court, D. Guam·Decided June 18, 2018·No. 1:17-cv-00128·Unknown

Opinion

THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM SEDFREY M. LINSANGAN, CIVIL CASE NO. 17-00128 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION, RECOMMENDATION Defendant.

This section 1983 action alleges various violations of Plaintiff’s rights under Guam’s Organic Act. ECF No. 1. Defendant has moved to dismiss the claims, contending Defendant is an improper section 1983 party, Plaintiff’s claims are unripe, and Plaintiff cannot, on any set of facts, state a claim for relief. ECF No. 4. The Magistrate Judge has issued a report on the motion to dismiss, in which he recommends that the court dismiss the action with leave to amend the complaint, so that Plaintiff may name appropriate section 1983 parties and allege facts, if any, which may establish that Plaintiff’s claims are ripe. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report. ECF No. 27. Defendant has now responded. ECF No. 29. When any party objects to any portion of a magistrate’s report and recommendation, the district court must undertake de novo review of those portions subject to objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). The court has carefully considered Plaintiffs objections and finds no basis for modifying the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. The court has also reviewed the relevant portions of the limited record created thus far and finds no errors in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. CONCLUSION. The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation in full. ECF No. 25. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff's objections and request for follow-up are DENIED. ECF Nos. 27, 28. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is MOOT. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is MOOT. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff's motion to strike notice is MOOT. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is MOOT. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint satisfying the deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood har. Chief Judge le ’ & Dated: Jun 18, 2018

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

THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM SEDFREY M. LINSANGAN, CIVIL CASE NO. 17-00128 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION, RECOMMENDATION Defendant.

This section 1983 action alleges various violations of Plaintiff’s rights under Guam’s Organic Act. ECF No. 1. Defendant has moved to dismiss the claims, contending Defendant is an improper section 1983 party, Plaintiff’s claims are unripe, and Plaintiff cannot, on any set of facts, state a claim for relief. ECF No. 4. The Magistrate Judge has issued a report on the motion to dismiss, in which he recommends that the court dismiss the action with leave to amend the complaint, so that Plaintiff may name appropriate section 1983 parties and allege facts, if any, which may establish that Plaintiff’s claims are ripe. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report. ECF No. 27. Defendant has now responded. ECF No. 29. When any party objects to any portion of a magistrate’s report and recommendation, the district court must undertake de novo review of those portions subject to objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). The court has carefully considered Plaintiffs objections and finds no basis for modifying the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. The court has also reviewed the relevant portions of the limited record created thus far and finds no errors in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. CONCLUSION. The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation in full. ECF No. 25. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff's objections and request for follow-up are DENIED. ECF Nos. 27, 28. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is MOOT. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is MOOT. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff's motion to strike notice is MOOT. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is MOOT. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint satisfying the deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood har. Chief Judge le ’ & Dated: Jun 18, 2018

Linsangan v. Guam Election Commission, (gud 2018).

Pincite

Linsangan v. Guam Election Commission (Linsangan v. Guam Election Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related