Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01806/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01806-6/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

1

 The pro se plaintiff’s objections include a request for reconsideration by the district

court. A request for reconsideration by the district judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-303(c) is

appropriate when the magistrate judge has ruled on a pretrial matter that does not require

findings and recommendations. Such a ruling is not at issue here, and plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration will be disregarded.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN G. DUNMORE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1806 LKK DAD PS

vs.

COUNTY OF PLACER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and other federal statutes. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 24, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations,1

 and defendants have filed replies.

Case 2:05-cv-01806-LKK -DAD Document 86 Filed 05/30/07 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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 April 24, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s federal claims under the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701

and 2707 and his state law claims of unlawful search and trespass are dismissed with prejudice;

3. The September 26, 2006 motion for summary judgment filed by defendants

Placer County, Valerie Harris, James Hudson, Edward N. Bonner, Stephen L. D’Arcy, and John

Addoms (sued as JFA) is granted as to all remaining claims against them;

4. The Placer County defendants’ September 26, 2006 motion in the alternative

for judgment on the pleadings is denied;

5. The September 26, 2006 motion for summary judgment filed by defendant

ChoicePoint Government Services Inc., sued as ChoicePoint Government Services, Inc. (AKA or

DBA ChoicePoint Online) and CDB Infotek (Intelligent Information), is granted as to all claims

against them; and

6. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close this case.

DATED: May 30, 2007

/dunmore1806.jo

Case 2:05-cv-01806-LKK -DAD Document 86 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2