(PC) Kyle v. Los Angeles Police Department et al, No. 2:2019cv01720 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/2/19 ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. The Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend, as frivolous. CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Kyle v. Los Angeles Police Department et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONTA LADEAL KYLE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. No. 2:19-cv-01720-TLN-AC ORDER LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 10, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 8.) 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 27 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 28 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 2 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 10, 2019 (ECF No. 7), are 7 adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 9 3. The Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend, as frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 10 1915A(b); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); and 11 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 2, 2019 14 15 16 17 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.