1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAUDA ILIYA, No. 2:22-cv-01305-DC-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

13 v. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (ECF Nos. 49, 68, 71, 72, 76) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 18, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 20 68) recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) be granted. 21 Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. 23 On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and 24 recommendations (ECF No. 70), including objecting that the claims against Defendant Scott R. 25 Jones in his official capacity as the prior Sheriff for Sacramento County are not duplicative; 26 dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims is premature; dismissal of Defendant Anne Marie 27 Schubert in her official capacity as the prior District Attorney for Sacramento County was 28 improper because Plaintiff’s allegations could demonstrate she acted outside of her prosecutorial 1 duties; there are issues of material fact about the accuracy of the stolen vehicle report related to 2 the false arrest claim; not all components of and allegations related to the malicious prosecution 3 and supervisory liability claims were addressed; and more facts are necessary to develop the 4 intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. 5 (ECF No. 73.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections and finds that none of them 6 provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations that Defendants’ motion 7 for summary judgment be granted. 8 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review. 9 The Court has carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff’s objections, and finds the findings 10 and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 11 Plaintiff also filed an untimely motion to file a third opposition to Defendants’ motion for 12 summary judgment (ECF No. 71) and a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF 13 No. 72) on March 10, 2025. Because the Court is adopting the findings and recommendations in 14 full, both motions (ECF Nos. 71, 72) are denied as moot. 15 Lastly, on April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for Review of the 16 Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal” and “Motion for Review of 17 Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Transfer of Venue.” (ECF No. 76 at 1, 9.) The 18 court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of 19 Magistrate Judge’s Ruling” pursuant to Local Rule 303(c), specifically seeking reconsideration of 20 the magistrate judge’s February 13, 2025 order (ECF No. 67) denying Plaintiff’s motion for 21 recusal of the magistrate judge and motion to transfer venue. The standard of review for “all such 22 requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)(A).” L.R. 303(f) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). “[R]eview under the clearly erroneous 24 standard is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 25 been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 26 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 72(a) provides that non-dispositive pretrial matters may be referred to and decided by a 28 magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a); see also 1 | L.R. 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s order 2 | which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” L.R. 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. 3 | § 636(b)(1)(A). The magistrate judge’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, 4 | whereas legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law. United 5 | States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds by 6 | Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate judge’s decision is 7 | ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an element of [the] 8 | applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of 9 | procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. 10 | Cal. July 18, 2014). The court has reviewed the February 13, 2025 order and finds no clear error 11 or conclusions that are contrary to law. Both of Plaintiff's motions were properly denied. 12 | Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for reconsideration (ECF No. 76) will be denied. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 68) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 15 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED; 16 3. Judgment shall be entered for Defendants; 17 4. Plaintiff's motion to file a third opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 18 || judgment (ECF No. 71) is DENIED as moot; 19 5. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 72) is 20 | DENIED as moot; 21 6. Plaintiffs request for reconsideration entitled “Motion for Review” (Doc. No. 76) 22 | is DENIED; and 23 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 26 | Dated: _ September 28, 2025 RY Oo Dena Coggins 27 United States District Judge 28