Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02136/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02136-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Stanley Howard
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-02136 TLN-AC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On December 3, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff 

filed a “request for declaratory decree” which the Court construes as an objection. (ECF No. 13.)

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2019, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, and this case is CLOSED.

Case 2:19-cv-02136-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 01/21/20 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

Dated: January 16, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02136-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2