-DAD Mitchell v. Sacramento City Unified School District, No. 2:2011cv00362 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/25/11 GRANTING 16 Motion to Set Aside ; DENYING 13 Motion for Default Judgment ; dft shall file its Rule 12 motion within 10 days and set the hearing before Judge Karlton as soon as practicable. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD Mitchell v. Sacramento City Unified School District Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EKIN MITCHELL, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. CIV S-11-0362 LKK DAD v. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ORDER 14 Defendant. / 15 16 17 18 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and by minute order filed June 29, 2011 (Doc. No. 15). On August 1, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 20 objections were to be filed within fourteen days after the filing of the findings and 21 recommendations. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 22 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 1, 2011 (Doc. No. 22) are 26 adopted in full; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 2. Defendant’s June 30, 2011 amended motion to set aside default (Doc. No. 16) is granted without conditions, except as set forth below; 3 4 5 3. Plaintiff’s June 24, 2011 motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 13) is denied; and 4. Defendant shall file its Rule 12 motion within ten days after this order is filed 6 and shall set the motion for hearing before the undersigned as soon as practicable. 7 DATED: August 25, 2011. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
