(PC) Rotroff v. Robinson et al, No. 1:2006cv01419 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 44 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and GRANTING in part and DISREGARDING in part Defendant's 35 Motion for Summary Adjudication signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/21/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
(PC) Rotroff v. Robinson et al Doc. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DENIS K. ROTROFF, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-1419-LJO DLB-PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DISREGARDING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION v. JIM ROBINSON, et al., 13 Defendants. (Doc. 44) 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Denis K. Rotroff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 19 On June 4, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which 20 was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 21 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. The parties have not filed timely 22 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 25 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 4, 2009, is adopted in full; 28 2. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication, filed September 15, 2008, is 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 GRANTED IN PART and DISREGARDED IN PART as follows: 2 a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims concerning the imminent 3 confiscation of his second personal laptop computer for lack of subject matter 4 jurisdiction, on both ripeness and lack-of-standing grounds, is GRANTED; 5 b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for damages as barred under 6 the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution is 7 DISREGARDED; 8 c. 9 Defendants’ motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under section 1983 or to support a demand for injunctive relief is DISREGARDED; 10 and 11 d. This action shall proceed to trial only on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 12 Due Process claims concerning the confiscation of Plaintiff’s first computer 13 and confiscation of Plaintiff’s software purchases. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: b9ed48 July 21, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.