(PC)Cochran v. Sherman et al, No. 1:2015cv01388 - Document 50 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Various Motions 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 27 , 44 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/30/17. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY COY COCHRAN, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-01388-DAD-BAM Plaintiff, v. S. SHERMAN, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING VARIOUS MOTIONS (Doc. Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 44) 16 17 Plaintiff Billy Cochran is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint 19 against defendants S. Sherman and J. Barba for the alleged violation of plaintiff’s First 20 Amendment rights based upon the denial of his requested name change for religious purposes. 21 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On July 24, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 (Doc. No. 44) recommending that: (1) plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the case file, filed on 25 October 12, 2016 (Doc. No. 16), be denied; (2) defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on November 26 9, 2016 (Doc. No. 19), be denied as moot; (3) plaintiff’s motions to defer a ruling and to permit 27 discovery, filed on November 22, 2016 (Doc. No. 20), and March 8, 2017 (Doc. No. 27), be 28 denied as moot; (4) plaintiff’s motion requesting documents, filed on November 22, 2016 (Doc. 1 1 No. 21), be denied as moot; and (5) plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on February 2 6, 2017 (Doc No. 22), be denied as premature. 3 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 4 recommendations within 30 days. (Doc. No. 44.) The 30-day time period has expired and, to 5 date, neither party has filed objections. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 7 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully considered the entire 8 file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 9 and proper analysis. 10 Given the foregoing: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 24, 2017 (Doc. No. 44) are adopted 12 in full; 13 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the case file (Doc. No. 16) is denied; 14 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is denied; 15 4. Plaintiff’s motion to defer a ruling and permit discovery (Doc. Nos. 20, 27) is denied; 16 5. Plaintiff’s motion requesting documents (Doc. No. 21) is denied; and 17 6. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22) is denied. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.