Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01643/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01643-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL MARQUEZ VALDIVIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01643-DC-SCR (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 18, 26)

Plaintiff Miguel Marquez Valdivia is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

action. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 5, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as timebarred by the applicable statutes of limitations (Doc. No. 18) be denied because Plaintiff 

sufficiently alleged facts to support tolling of the limitations period. (Doc. No. 26.) Those 

pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 9–10.) To date, 

no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 

which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

Case 2:22-cv-01643-DC-SCR Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2024 (Doc. No. 26) are 

adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:22-cv-01643-DC-SCR Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 2