(PS) Warfield v. California Highway Patrol

E.D. California

(PS) Warfield v. California Highway Patrol

DecidedApril 3, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02886

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Warfield v. California Highway Patrol ((PS) Warfield v. California Highway Patrol) 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

(PS) Warfield v. California Highway Patrol, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRODERICK WARFIELD, No. 2:24-cv-2886-DJC-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 13, 31.) 14 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL GOLDEN GATE DIVISION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 2, 2024, the Magistrate 19 Judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13), which were served on the 20 parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Plaintiff filed objections 22 to the findings and recommendations on December 9, 2024 (ECF No. 16), December 23 13, 2024 (ECF No. 18), which have been considered by the court. 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 25 which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 26 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also 27 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the 28 proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its 1 | correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 2 | 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are 3 | reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Schoo! Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th 4 | Cir. 1983). 5 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause 6 | appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and 7 | recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. Plaintiff's ex parte TRO motion (ECF No. 10) is DENIED; 10 3. Plaintiff's request to seal (ECF No. 14) is DENIED; 11 4. Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file an amended TRO motion and 12 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 31) is DENIED; and 13 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 14 pretrial proceedings. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _April 2, 2025 “Daniel CoD tto— Hon. Daniel □□ |. Cod 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRODERICK WARFIELD, No. 2:24-cv-2886-DJC-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 13, 31.) 14 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL GOLDEN GATE DIVISION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 2, 2024, the Magistrate 19 Judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13), which were served on the 20 parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Plaintiff filed objections 22 to the findings and recommendations on December 9, 2024 (ECF No. 16), December 23 13, 2024 (ECF No. 18), which have been considered by the court. 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 25 which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 26 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also 27 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the 28 proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its 1 | correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 2 | 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are 3 | reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Schoo! Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th 4 | Cir. 1983). 5 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause 6 | appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and 7 | recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. Plaintiff's ex parte TRO motion (ECF No. 10) is DENIED; 10 3. Plaintiff's request to seal (ECF No. 14) is DENIED; 11 4. Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file an amended TRO motion and 12 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 31) is DENIED; and 13 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 14 pretrial proceedings. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _April 2, 2025 “Daniel CoD tto— Hon. Daniel □□ |. Cod 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Warfield v. California Highway Patrol, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-warfield-v-california-highway-patrol-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack