Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02099/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02099-9/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

 The document contains the hearing date of November 29, 2009 which the court 1

presumes is a typographical error.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASONJA PORTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2099 MCE GGH PS

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiffs have filed another document styled “application in order to amended

motion and summary judgment motion,” noticing it for hearing on November 29, 2007. This 1

motion, like plaintiffs’ previously filed summary judgment motion, does not meet the pleading

standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and E. D. Local Rule 56-260. It contains no statement of

undisputed facts, supporting affidavits, or citation to evidentiary documents in support thereof. It

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 11/21/07 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

 To the extent that plaintiffs’ motion can be construed to seek the default judgment of 2

defendant Henderson, it is similarly defective. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).

2

 also contains no memorandum of points and authorities.2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment,

filed October 1, 2007, is vacated from the calendar for November 29, 2007.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 11/21/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076:Porter2099.f&r.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 11/21/07 Page 2 of 2