Rockwell v. Tuolumne County, California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLAN THOMAS ROCKWELL, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00392-JLT-EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 13 v. ) THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ) DEFAULT BE DENIED 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., ) ) ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO DISQUALIFY 15 Defendants. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) 16 ) (Docs. 37, 43, 51, 52) ) 17 18 Allan Thomas Rockwell, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on April 4, 2022. (Doc. 1.) 19 Plaintiff thereafter requested entry of default against Defendants Tuolumne County and Melissa 20 Brouhard. (Doc. 37.) The assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that 21 Defendants Tuolumne County and Melissa Brouhard were properly served under Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 4 and California Law and recommended that Plaintiff’s request for entry of default be 23 denied. (Doc. 43 at 3.) The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to object to the Findings and 24 Recommendations. (Id. at 5.) On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s 25 findings and recommendations. (Doc. 51.) In addition to Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff requests that 26 United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean be disqualified and that the Court “rescind consent 27 for a magistrate judge to hear the case.” (Id. at 4.) 28 Regarding disqualification, Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge should be disqualified 1 || because the reasoning and conclusions contained within orders she entered in this case demonstrate a 2 || bias against Plaintiff. However, having carefully reviewed the entire record, the Court concludes that 3 || the magistrate judge’s orders simply reject Plaintiffs legal positions and procedural moves as 4 incorrect or unlawful. Plaintiff's disagreement with these conclusions is not a valid basis for 5 || disqualification. See Raiser v. City of Temecula, No. EDCV 19-01465-DSF (KK), 2020 WL 193788: 6 || at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2020) (“Plaintiff's mere disagreement with a ruling or even a court’s error (if 7 || there is one) does not transform that ruling into basis for disqualification.”’). 8 To the extent Plaintiff is suggesting that this matter is being treated as one in which any party 9 || has “consented” to have the magistrate judge rule on dispositive matters, Plaintiff is mistaken. Even 10 || absent consent from all parties, which has not been obtained, the assigned magistrate judge may still 11 || perform various roles as set forth in the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. See, e.g., 12 || Local Rules 302, 303. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 14 || Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes the 15 || Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Based upon the 16 || foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 14, 2022 (Doc. 43) are ADOPTE] 18 in full. 19 2. Plaintiff's request for entry of default (Doc. 37) is DENIED. 20 3. Plaintiff's motion to disqualify (Docs. 51, 52) is DENIED. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 |! Dated: _ October 12, 2022 ( LAW ph L. wan 24 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28