(PS) Hedrington v. County of Solano

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 15, 20212:21-cv-00414California478 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ORLONZO HEDRINGTON, No. 2:21-cv-0414 KJM DB PS Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER

COUNTY OF SOLANO, FAIRFIELD

POLICE DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL

ARIMBOANGA, DAVID GRANT

MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants. 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 13, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations, ECF Nos. 36, 38, and the United States responded, ECF No. 37. The court has reviewed the file de novo. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over claims…

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.