(PC) Perrotte v. Johnson et al, No. 1:2015cv00026 - Document 163 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's 162 Objections to 157 Findings and Recommendations to the July 10, 2018, Findings and Recommendations, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/25/18. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY P. PERROTTE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. STACEY JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE JULY 10, 2018, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ECF Nos. 157, 162] Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On July 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, recommending 20 that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s 21 retaliation claim against Defendant Johnson for placement of a false CDCR Form 128-B in Plaintiff’s 22 central file and placement in the administrative security housing unit. (ECF No. 157.) It was further 23 recommended that all other claims against Defendant Johnson and Defendant LeFlore be dismissed 24 from the action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (Id.) The 25 Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to 26 be filed within thirty days. (Id.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Plaintiff did not file objections within the thirty-day time frame. On September 24, 2018, the 2 Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full. (ECF No. 161.) On this same date, but after the 3 order adopting was placed on the docket, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and 4 Recommendations, self-dated by Plaintiff on September 15, 2018. (ECF No. 162.) 5 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and confirms the September 24, 2018 order 6 adopting the Findings and Recommendations in full. In his objections, Plaintiff largely repeats the 7 arguments previously presented in his opposition and expresses his disagreement with the July 10, 8 2018 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the 9 Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court’s September 24, 2018 order adopting the 10 Findings and Recommendations remains the law of this case. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ September 25, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.