(PC) Head v. County of Sacramento et al, No. 2:2019cv01663 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/30/21 ADOPTING 67 Findings and Recommendations. Defendant Kenneth Shelton's Motion to Dismiss 54 is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's state law claim and DENIED as to Plaintiff's Wiretap Act claim. Within thirty (30) days of the date of electronic filing date of this Order, Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Head v. County of Sacramento et al Doc. 71 Case 2:19-cv-01663-TLN-KJN Document 71 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HEAD, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-01663-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al, Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles Head (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 3, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 67.) Neither 23 party has filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 28 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-01663-TLN-KJN Document 71 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 3, 2021 (ECF No. 67), are ADOPTED 3 IN FULL; 4 2. Defendant Kenneth Shelton’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 54) is 5 GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s state law claim and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Wiretap Act claim; and 6 7 8 9 3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of electronic filing date of this Order, Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 30, 2021 10 11 12 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.