Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02217/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02217-10/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARVIN GILLAM & PAMALA 

GILLAM, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2217-KJM-KJN PS 

ORDER 

 On May 27, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 40), 

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. 

 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). Having reviewed 

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations on the merits of defendant’s summary 

judgement motion to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02217-KJM-KJN Document 45 Filed 07/28/16 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations on the merits (ECF No. 40) are ADOPTED IN 

FULL. 

 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. 

 3. Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. 

 4. Summary judgment is granted in favor of the City of Vallejo as to plaintiffs’ Monell

claim. 

 5. Summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff Marvin Gillam’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim 

against defendant Officer McCarthy and plaintiff Pamala Gillam’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim 

against defendant Officer Bautista. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 27, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02217-KJM-KJN Document 45 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 2