(PS) Sarkis v. Yolo County Public Agency Risk Mgt. Ins. Authority ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMOND SARKIS, No. 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 YOLO COUNTY PUBLIC AGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE 15 AUTHORITY, JILL COOK, individually and in her official capacity, and RONALD 16 J. MARTINEZ, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 On July 31, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants filed objections on August 22 14, 2023, and they were considered by the undersigned. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 31, 2023 (ECF No. 53) are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 4 2. Plaintiffs motion to strike (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED in part, and Defendants’ 5 affirmative defenses, specifically those numbered 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 6 20, 21, 22, and 23, are STRICKEN. 7 | Date: September 6, 2023 8 /) ? “ oka 10 ZN Troy L. Nunley> } 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28