Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02964/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02964-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD WARREN BOHN,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-02964-JD 

ORDER DENYING RULE 60 MOTION 

FOR RELIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Defendant Richard Bohn filed a motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60 from the Court’s order remanding this criminal cockfighting case to the Superior 

Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. Dkt. No. 14. Bohn claims that he “never 

received” Magistrate Judge Cousins’ report and recommendation which the Court adopted, but a 

certificate of service, Dkt. No. 3-2, evidences that a copy was mailed to him at his correct address. 

Moreover, Bohn was obviously aware of the report and recommendation by September 12, 2018, 

at the latest, but it appears he did not take steps to obtain a copy of the report by, for example, 

coming in person to the Clerk’s Office or visiting the Court’s public access website, 

http://www.pacer.gov.

Bohn’s argument that the “magistrate’s report and recommendation is void for being done 

without consent,” Dkt. No. 14 at 2, is wrong as a matter of law. Bohn’s consent was not needed 

for Magistrate Judge Cousins’ report and recommendation, which the Court previously found --

and continues to find -- as well-reasoned. Bohn’s motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02964-JD Document 15 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 1