Anthony Grissom Sr v. Riverside County Jail et al
| Anthony Grissom, Sr |
| County of Riverside, Riverside County Jail and Unknown Officers |
| 5:2010cv01727 |
| November 8, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Percy Anderson |
| Jacqueline Chooljian |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
117
ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Percy Anderson, re Notice of Settlement 116 Before the Court is a Notice of Settlement and Joint Stipulation. The parties have reached settlem ent on all issues raised in this matter. Having read and considered the parties stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor, it is ordered as follows: This case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a).Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pj)
|
|
Filing
107
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Before the Court is a Motion to Recuse filed by plaintiff Anthony Grissom 97 in Case No. ED CV 12-1866 PA (MRW)). Plaintiff seeks to disqualify United States MagistrateJudge Michael R. Wilner. Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, has two actions pending in this Court, Case Nos. ED CV 10-1727 PA (MRW) and ED CV 12-1866 PA (MRW). The caption of Plaintiff's Motion appears to seek the disqualification of Magistrate Judge Wilner in both ac tions. In accordance with General Order 14-03 and Local Rule 72-5, the Motion has been assigned to this Court for determination. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 7-15, and General Order 08-05, the Court finds th at this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse fails to set forth sufficient factual allegations to require disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, or any evidence tending to show personal bias stemming from an extrajudicial source. Nor is there any basis to believe that any other ground for disqualification exists. Rather, it appears that Plaintiff simply disagrees with the Court's rulings. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse 105 is denied. This Order applies in both Case No. ED CV 10-1727 PA (MRW) and Case No. ED CV 12-1866 PA (MRW). See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
74
JUDGMENT by Judge Percy Anderson. IT IS ADJUDGED that: judgment be entered in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs failure-to-protect claim; and the remainder of the action be dismissed without prejudice. Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations, 73 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (vm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
