(PS) Ingram v. Sacramento Police Department et al, No. 2:2009cv01562 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/22/09 ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations in full. Dfts' 29 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED except for the claim against dft Villegas under the Fourth Amendment for excessive force during an investigatory stop. Dft Sacramento Police Department and Miller are DISMISSED. (Engbretson, K.)

Download PDF
(PS) Ingram v. Sacramento Police Department et al Doc. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHADERICK INGRAM, 11 12 Plaintiff, No. CIV 09-1562 GEB KJM PS vs. 13 ANDREW MILLER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 ORDER / The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). On October 20, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Objections to 21 the findings and recommendations have been filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 23 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 24 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 25 proper analysis. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 20, 2009 are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket no. 29) is granted except for the claim 4 against defendant Villegas under the Fourth Amendment for excessive force during an 5 investigatory stop; and 6 7 3. Defendant Sacramento Police Department and Miller are dismissed. Dated: December 22, 2009 8 9 10 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.