Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02366-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

27 

28 

1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT TOEPFER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK 

ORDER 

(ECF No. 22.) 

On October 7, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 

22), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 

filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 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 HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

///// 

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 23 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 

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 

(ECF No. 3) is DENIED; 

3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; and 

4. Plaintiffs are given thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. 

DATED: December 6, 2024. 

 

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 23 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 2