Summary
finding that where undisclosed DNA results had been requested by and returned to one county's sheriff's department, there was no evidence establishing that an investigating officer from another county's sheriff's department who participated in investigation yet testified he had never seen the results made a conscious effort to withhold exculpatory evidence
Summary of this case from Jennings v. NashOpinion
CASE NO. 2:10-cv-00066-SWW-JJV.
July 25, 2011
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the Plaintiff's objections. After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.