Nichols

Nichols v. Harris

Good Law
17 F. Supp. 3d 989·2014 WL 1716135·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60847
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 1, 2014Case No. CV 11-9916 SJO (SS)California11,288 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Otero, J.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 , the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiffs Objections, and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs Objections. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. In addition, the Court will address certain arguments raised by Plaintiff in his Objections.

Plaintiff asserts that the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.2014), has been “stayed” and is neither binding on this Court nor relevant to his claims. (Obj. at 8). Plaintiff is mistaken.

*993 On February 28, 2014, the Ninth Circuit stayed the issuance of the mandate in Peruta pending briefing and a decision on a motion for rehearing en banc. See Peruta v. County of San Diego, 9th Cir. Case No. 10-56971 (Dkt. No. 126, entered Feb. 28, 2014) (order extending time for filing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.