(PS) Creel v. Sacramento County Sheriff Dept. et al

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 finds 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
/////
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 43 Filed 12/30/25 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
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.
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 43 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 2