(PC) Doster v. Beard et al, No. 1:2015cv01415 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 68 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/21/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAMIEN DOSTER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., (Doc. Nos. 58, 68) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Damien T. Doster is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 31, 2017, defendant Sarah Leon filed a motion to compel (Doc. No. 58), 21 contending that plaintiff had failed to adequately comply with prior court orders and requesting 22 dismissal as an appropriate sanction. On January 29, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued 23 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 68), recommending that defendant Leon’s motion to 24 compel be granted but that the request for dismissal as a sanction be denied. The parties were 25 granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The 26 fourteen-day deadline has expired, and no objections have been filed. 27 ///// 28 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 The findings and recommendations issued January 29, 2018 (Doc. No. 68) are adopted in full; 7 2. Defendant Leon’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 58) is granted in part; 8 3. Plaintiff is required to serve defendant Leon with further responses to defendant Leon’s interrogatories numbers 10 and 14, within thirty days; 9 10 4. 11 discovery responses with the court; 12 5. Plaintiff is required to date and sign his responses to the interrogatories, under penalty of perjury;1 and 13 14 15 Plaintiff is advised, pursuant to Local Rules 250.2, 250.3, and 250.4, not to file his 6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 21, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The responses must be dated and signed by plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to facts known by plaintiff, in substantially the following form: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) . (Signature).” 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.
