(PS) Ingram v. Sacramento City Police Department et al, No. 2:2008cv02547 - Document 70 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/23/10 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 61 are ADOPTED; pltf's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(PS) Ingram v. Sacramento City Police Department et al Doc. 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHADERICK A. INGRAM, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2547 LKK EFB PS vs. SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER GARY DAHL #672, 14 Defendants. ORDER 15 __________________________________/ 16 17 On November 23, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on 20 November 30, 2009, and they were considered by the undersigned. 21 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 22 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 23 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 24 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 25 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 26 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 2 1983). 3 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 7 8 9 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 23, 2009, are ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Dckt. No. 53, is denied. DATED: February 23, 2010. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.