Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF Nos. 57-71, 82, 87, 91)

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 10, 2013, default

was entered against Defendants Boehm, King, Mariposa County Sheriff Department, Rameriz, 

and Rumfelt.

On January 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations

recommending setting aside the Entry of Default which was served on the parties and which 

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to 

be filed within thirty days. On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Objection. 

In his objection, Plaintiff argues that he has been prejudiced due to “evidence” having 

been destroyed. There is nothing in the record to suggest that there has been the destruction of 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 96 Filed 01/23/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

any evidence in this action. Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are not sufficient to establish that he 

will suffer any prejudice in this action. Should this action survive the motion to dismiss, the 

Court will issue an order opening discovery in this action. If Plaintiff discovers that evidence has 

actually been destroyed, the issue will be addressed at that time.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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 January 9, 2014, is ADOPTED IN 

FULL; 

2. The Entry of Default filed September 10, 2013 is SET ASIDE; and

3. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 96 Filed 01/23/14 Page 2 of 2