Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02261/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02261-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

ROBERT M. MEAD, TRUSTEE, No. CIV-S-04-2261 MCE/DAD PS

ROBERT M. MEAD LIVING TRUST,

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER 

RICHARD L. DICKINSON, ET AL., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On November 4, 2004, 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. Plaintiff and

defendants have filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. (See Doc. nos. 11 & 15.)

///

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 4
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

 In their objections, defendants request only that the 1

court issue Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against

plaintiff. However, the magistrate judge denied an earlier

request by defendants for Rule 11 sanctions, explaining that “no

Rule 11 motion has been properly briefed or noticed for hearing

as required by the Local Rules.” (Order filed December 7, 2004.) 

Defendants’ renewed request for sanctions in their objections is

also unsupported by any meaningful showing. Therefore,

defendants’ request for Rule 11 sanctions is denied. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(A)(“A motion for sanctions under this rule shall

be made separately from other motions or requests and shall

describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision

(b).”). 

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 and has considered the parties

objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis. The court has determined that

there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based

on the points raised in the parties’ objections.1

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 4, 2004,

are adopted in full; 

2. This state civil action is summarily remanded to the

Sacramento County Superior Court; and

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

DATED: November 2, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 4 of 4