(PS) Todd v. Wood et al, No. 2:2013cv00218 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2014 ADOPTING-IN-PART 3 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The claims again defendant Wood are DISMISSED. The Findings and Recommendations are NOT ADOPTED as to Defendant Hoffman and the case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for screening as to this defendant. This court expresses no opinion on the adequacy of the claims again defendant Hoffman. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
(PS) Todd v. Wood et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEREK TODD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-218-KJM-EFB PS v. ORDER JEFFREY WOOD, BAR #206399; SANDRA HOFFMAN, Defendants. 16 17 On February 8, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 18 19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Those findings and 21 recommendations were adopted in full by order filed June 17, 2013. ECF No. 4. On June 19, 22 2013, plaintiff filed a request for a sixty-day extension of time in which to file his objections. 23 That request was granted on June 28, 2013. ECF No. 6. Accordingly, the court vacated the June 24 17 order adopting the findings and recommendations and gave plaintiff 60 days to file his 25 objections. Plaintiff timely filed objections on July 3, 2013, and the court has now considered 26 them. 27 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 28 plaintiff has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). As to any portion of the proposed findings of 2 fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the 3 motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). 4 The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified 5 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 As the court originally noted in the order of June 17, 2013, the magistrate judge 7 did not properly evaluate the claims against defendant Hoffman and so the court declined to adopt 8 the findings and recommendations as to her. Plaintiff’s objections do not alter this conclusion. 9 10 In sum, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendations except with respect to defendant Hoffman. 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 8, 2013, are adopted in part 13 and the claims against defendant Wood are dismissed; 14 2. The Findings and Recommendations are not adopted as to defendant Hoffman 15 and the case is referred back to the magistrate judge for screening as to this defendant; this court 16 expresses no opinion on the adequacy of the claims against defendant Hoffman; and 17 18 3. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; DATED: September 30, 2014. 19 20 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.