govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01533-7

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 
CHAD MICHAEL CREEL, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT, et al., 
Defendants. 
No. 2:24-cv-01533-KJM-SCR 
 
ORDER 
 
 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter , which was referred to the magistrate judge 
under Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 
 On December 5, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 40. Neither party 
has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 
 The court has reviewed the file and fi nds 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 5, 2025, are adopted in full; and 
///// 

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 
 
 
 2. Defendant SCSD’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is DENIED. The motion is 
unnecessary to the extent Defendant SCSD has already been dismissed from this action, and 
Plaintiff’s noncompliance does not merit the severe sanction of dismissal of the entire action. 
Plaintiff is cautioned that future noncompliance with orders of the Court may result in appropriate 
sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action. 
DATED: December 29, 2025. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight