Manuel M Soares v. Sgt R Guajardo et al, No. 2:2014cv09651 - Document 37 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 30 . The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. IT IS ORDERED t hat: (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ["Motion," Dkt. No. 22] is GRANTED insofar as the official capacity claims and request for injunctive relief set forth in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice; (2) The Motion is DENIED insof ar as it seeks to dismiss the Complaint's individual capacity claims alleged against Defendants in their individual capacities; and (3) Within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall answer the Complaint as it has been amended by this Order. (dml)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Manuel M Soares v. Sgt R Guajardo et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL M. SOARES, 12 13 14 15 Case No. CV 14-9651-FMO(GJS) Plaintiff v. R. GUAJARDO, et al., Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint and all 19 pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this action, the Report and 20 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Defendants’ 21 Objections to the Report. The deadline for filing Objections to the Report has 22 passed, and the Court has not received any Objections from Plaintiff. Pursuant to 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo 24 review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated. 25 26 27 Having completed its review, the Court concludes that nothing in the Objections affects or alters the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [“Motion,” Dkt. No. 22] is GRANTED 3 insofar as the official capacity claims and request for injunctive relief set forth 4 in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice; 5 (2) The Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks to dismiss the Complaint’s 6 individual capacity claims alleged against Defendants in their individual 7 capacities; and 8 9 10 11 12 (3) Within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall answer the Complaint as it has been amended by this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: December 30, 2015 _____________/s/_____________________ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
