Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ingram v. Grant Joint Union High School District

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 9, 2010

CHADERICK A. INGRAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On August 16, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. Defendants have filed timely objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 16, 2010 (Doc. No. 73) are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' September 21, 2009 motion to strike portions of plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) (Doc. No. 54) is granted and the specified portions of the pleading are deemed stricken;

3. Defendants' September 21, 2009 motion to dismiss and for more definite statement (Doc. No. 56) is

(a) granted as to dismissal of all claims against Grant Joint Union High School District Police Services Division;

(b) granted as to dismissal of all claims alleged under the First, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(c) denied as to dismissal of the claims alleged against defendants Breck and Scott under the Fourth Amendment;

(d) denied as to requiring a more definite statement; and

4. Defendants' September 21, 2009 motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 58) is denied.

20100909

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.