Opinion
5:23-cv-00112-HDV (MAR)
09-25-2024
ASHISH ACHARJEE, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HERNAN D. VERA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the operative First Amended Complaint, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made.
The Report recommends the grant of Defendants' motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff's claims of constitutional violations during his criminal proceeding. (ECF No. 73.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff's objections to the Report (ECF No. 74) do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations.
Plaintiff objects that the Report reflects abuse of judicial authority, legal error, and judicial bias. (ECF No. 74 at 2-4.) This vague objection is not responsive to the Report.
Plaintiff objects that Defendants' attorney filed a declaration with “wrong statements” about meeting and conferring with Plaintiff about a Stipulated Protective Order. (ECF No. 74 at 4-5 (citing ECF No. 43).) This vague objection also is not responsive to the Report.
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge issued an order striking his motion to compel. (ECF No. 74 at 5 (citing ECF No. 46).) The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's order striking the motion. The motion did not have hearing information and violated multiple local rules. (ECF No. 46 (citing ECF No. 40).)
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 74 at 5.) The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's denial of the motion. It was not clear what Plaintiff was requesting in the motion and, to the extent that any requests could be gleaned from the motion, relief was not warranted. (ECF No. 39 (citing ECF No. 30).)
Plaintiff objects that he was not able to retrieve some of the filings on PACER. (ECF No. 74 at 6.) Defendants point out that the filings are under seal on PACER to prevent disclosure of personally identifying information of the victim and Plaintiff's son. (ECF No. 75.) Moreover, Plaintiff had access to all the filings in preparation for his Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff objects that Defendants' attorneys engaged in ex parte communications with the Judges assigned to this case. (ECF No. 74 at 6-7.) This objection is unsupported.
Plaintiff objects that Defendants' attorney “made material statements on behalf of the court and magistrate judge[.]” (ECF No. 74 at 7.) This objection also is unsupported.
In sum, Plaintiff's objections are overruled.
IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and (3) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice and without leave to amend.