-CMK (PS) Johnston v. City of Red Bluff, et al, No. 2:2009cv01353 - Document 70 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 8/31/11 DENYING as Premature 43 and 55 Motions for Summary Judgment; ADOPTING 62 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and DENYING 65 Motion for Reconsideration. No further motions for reconsideration of the 7/15/11 Order shall be entertained. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
-CMK (PS) Johnston v. City of Red Bluff, 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 11 SCOTT JOHNSTON, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 No. CIV S-09-1353-FCD-CMK ORDER CITY OF RED BLUFF, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff brings this civil action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 18 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, against the City of Red Bluff and various of its employees. 19 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of 20 California local rules. 21 On June 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 22 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 23 objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have 24 been filed. 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. 5 Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 65) of the 6 Magistrate Judge’s order allowing defendants to file an amended answer. Pursuant to Eastern 7 District of California Local Rule 303(f), a Magistrate Judge’s order shall be upheld unless 8 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does 9 not appear that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The July 10 15, 2011, order is, therefore, affirmed. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 23, 2011, are adopted in 2. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Docs. 43 and 55) are denied as 16 3. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 65) is denied; 17 4. The Magistrate Judge’s July 15, 2011, order is affirmed; and 18 5. No further motions for reconsideration of the July 15, 2011, order shall be 13 full; 14 15 premature; 19 entertained. 20 DATED: August 31,2011. 21 22 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.