(PC) Hogue v. Sacramento Police Department, No. 2:2017cv00434 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 09/30/19 GRANTING defendant City of Sacramento's 17 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by unreasonable search and seizure and his state law negligence claim are DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendant City of Sacramento. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(PC) Hogue v. Sacramento Police Department Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN HOGUE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-0434-MCE-EFB P v. ORDER SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 30, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 21. Neither party 24 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 26 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 27 ORDERED that: 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2019 (ECF No. 21), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED; and 4 3. Plaintiff’s claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by unreasonable 5 search and seizure and his state law negligence claim are DISMISSED without prejudice as to 6 defendant City of Sacramento. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2019 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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.