Ricardo Gonzalez v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
54
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge A. Howard Matz for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 53 ; Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on all claims raised in the Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See order for details. (jy)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
NO. CV 10-01100-AHM (SS)
RICARDO GONZALEZ, aka JOSE LUIS )
GONZALEZ,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL CHACON and
)
JAMES GIDEON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second
19
Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, all of the
20
records
21
Recommendation.
22
Recommendation
23
Accordingly,
24
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, except as modified below.
25
\\
26
\\
27
\\
28
\\
and
files
herein,
and
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
Report
and
The time for filing Objections to the Report and
has
the
passed
Court
and
no
accepts
Objections
the
have
findings,
been
received.
conclusions
and
1
At page 16, line 9, the Court inserts the following language:
2
3
Because the Court finds that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred
4
here, it is unnecessary to reach Defendants’ assertion of qualified
5
immunity.
6
was not objectively reasonable, a reasonable police officer could
7
properly believe the use of this level of force was necessary, given
8
Plaintiff’s intoxication, gang member status, and resistance to arrest.
9
Accordingly,
10
However, even if the Court had concluded that the force used
Defendants
would
be
entitled
to
qualified
immunity.
Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244-5, 129 S. Ct. at 823.
11
12
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
13
14
1.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;
2.
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against
15
16
17
Plaintiff on all claims raised in the Second Amended Complaint; and
18
19
3.
The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
20
DATED:
September 28, 2011
21
22
23
____________________________
A. HOWARD MATZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
