(PS) Whitsitt v. City of Stockton

E.D. California

(PS) Whitsitt v. City of Stockton

DecidedMarch 25, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-01178

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Whitsitt v. City of Stockton ((PS) Whitsitt v. City of Stockton) 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) Whitsitt v. City of Stockton, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, No. 2:20-cv-1178 KJM AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On August 26, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has not filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations, which the court considers. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 25 novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 26 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion to file late opposition, ECF No. 6, construed as a motion to file late 3 || objections, is GRANTED; 4 2. The findings and recommendations filed August 26, 2020, ECF No. 4, are ADOPTED 5 | in full; 6 3. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED but that the 7 || complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative; and 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 | DATED: March 24, 2021. 10 1 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, No. 2:20-cv-1178 KJM AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On August 26, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has not filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations, which the court considers. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 25 novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 26 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion to file late opposition, ECF No. 6, construed as a motion to file late 3 || objections, is GRANTED; 4 2. The findings and recommendations filed August 26, 2020, ECF No. 4, are ADOPTED 5 | in full; 6 3. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED but that the 7 || complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative; and 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 | DATED: March 24, 2021. 10 1 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Whitsitt v. City of Stockton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-whitsitt-v-city-of-stockton-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack