(PC) Thompson v. Gomez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK SHANE THOMPSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-00125-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART 13 v. AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE SURREPLY AND 14 A. GOMEZ, et al., GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 Defendants. JUDGMENT 16 (Docs. 84, 94, 99) 17 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant the 18 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) as to Plaintiff’s excessive force and failure 19 to intervene claims against Defendant Johnson arising from the escort1. The magistrate judge also 20 recommended the court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in all other respects, due 21 to the existence of material disputed facts as to the need, degree, and motivation for the extent of 22 the force used during the takedown incident. The magistrate judge also recommended the court 23 grant the motion to strike as to the unauthorized surreply (Doc. 99) but to deny it as to Plaintiff’s 24 evidence addendum (Docs. 92, 93). 25 The court granted the parties 21 days to object to the findings and recommendations. 26 (Doc. 99 at 27.) In addition, the court advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within 27 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 28 1 | 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No 2 | objections were filed, and the time to do so has expired. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 4 | case. The court finds that the recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs surreply (Doc. 94) is GRANTED in part 7 and DENIED in part as follows: 8 a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs surreply (Doc. 91). 9 b. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs evidence addendum (Docs. 10 92, 93). 11 C. Plaintiffs unauthorized surreply to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12 91) is STRICKEN. 13 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) is GRANTED in part and 14 DENIED in part as follows: 15 a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's excessive force and 16 failure to intervene claim against Johnson arising from the escort. 17 b. Defendants’ motion is DENIED in all other respects. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _ April 20, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28