Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Luckey
Plaintiff
Visalia Unified School District
Defendant

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

TIMOTHY LUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

ECF NO. 29, 30

On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff Timothy Luckey (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 29.) On May 23, 2014, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a 

Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be 

denied. (ECF No. 30.)

The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed 

within thirty (30) days. On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” However, therein, Plaintiff acknowledges 

that he does not fully understand the Court’s local rules and procedures and “Completely 

Understand The Findings And Recommendations Given To Me By This Court.” (Obj. to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 1:18-19.) Plaintiff’s filing does not set forth 

any legal objection to the Findings and Recommendation and instead consists of a recitation of 

facts by Plaintiff and a copy of an employment evaluation.

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 32 Filed 06/30/14 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The May 23, 2014 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 The Court reminds the parties of the scheduling conference that is set for 9:45 a.m. on August 19, 2014, before the 

Magistrate Judge. See Doc. No. 27. 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 32 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 2