Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01046-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, 2:07-cv-1046-GEB-GGH-PS

vs.

SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On March 13, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Defendants filed timely

objections on March 20, 2008, and plaintiff filed timely objections on March 26, 2008, but both

were considered by the district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

Case 2:07-cv-01046-GEB-GGH Document 33 Filed 04/15/08 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

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations filed March 13, 2008, are ADOPTED;

and defendants’ motion to dismiss (#13 & #16) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

1. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department shall remain a named defendant;

2. Deputy Sheriffs Bahr Tharsing and Robert Stewart shall remain named defendants,

both in their personal and official capacities;

3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for unlawful arrest pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments shall proceed;

4. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims pursuant to the Fifth (Double Jeopardy) and Sixth

Amendments are dismissed;

5. Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim pursuant to § 1983 is dismissed as to the County

only; the claim shall proceed against Deputies Tharsing and Stewart in their personal capacities;

6. Plaintiff’s compensatory damages claim pursuant to § 1983 shall proceed against all

defendants; and

7. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 are

dismissed.

Dated: April 15, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01046-GEB-GGH Document 33 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2