Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01122-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01122-LJO-SKO

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO SUPPLEMENT REPLY BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 28)

Plaintiff Leonard Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552.6 on July 19, 2013. 

(Doc. 2.) On August 6 and 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed motions to compel discovery and to compel 

production of a Vaughn Index. (Docs. 15; 18.) Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed 

oppositions to the motions to compel and filed a motion for summary judgment on September 8, 

2014. (See Doc. 19.) Plaintiff then filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on September 26, 

2014. (Doc. 20.) As the motions to compel discovery and to produce a Vaughn Index are directly 

related to the substantive issue of production of documents under the FOIA, they were continued 

and consolidated with the parties’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 26.) 

On March 17, 2015, the Court recommended pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 304 that Defendant DOJ’s motion for summary judgment be granted and Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery and 

the production of a Vaughn Index were concurrently denied as well. (Doc. 27.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01122-LJO-SKO Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 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

Plaintiff was notified that if he disagreed with the Court’s Findings and Recommendations,

he could file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties within twenty-eight 

(28) days of service of the recommendation. (See Doc. 27, p. 22-23.) Plaintiff was not given 

leave to file any other document, pleading, or motion with the Court. (See Doc. 27, p. 22-23.)

On March 25, 2015, apparently in response to the Court’s recommendation, Plaintiff filed 

his “Motion to Supplement Reply Brief in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.” 

(Doc. 28.) Plaintiff was not granted leave to file such a Motion, and is referred to the Court’s 

recommendation of March 17, 2015, for the proper procedure by which he may object to the 

Court’s recommendation. 

If Plaintiff intends to object to the Court’s recommendation of March 17, 2015, he must 

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties within twenty-eight (28) days 

of service of the recommendation. The written objection is required to be captioned “Objections 

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The written 

objection must contain all of Plaintiff’s objections and arguments, and the failure to file objections 

within the specified time frame may waive Plaintiff’s right to appeal any part of an order affirming 

the Court’s recommendation. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). This 

means that Plaintiff’s written objections must be received and filed by no later than Friday, March 

17, 2015, and must contain all Plaintiff’s objections. 

In light of the Court’s recommendation on March 17, 2015, Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Supplement Reply Brief in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is ORDERED 

STRICKEN from the record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01122-LJO-SKO Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 2