Williams v. Alcala, 1:17-cv-00916-DAD-SAB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180420781
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 28, 31) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Robert C. Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 25, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 31.) The findings and recommendations found that pla
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 28, 31) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Robert C. Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 25, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 31.) The findings and recommendations found that plai..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 28, 31)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Robert C. Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 25, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 31.) The findings and recommendations found that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is defective because it fails to cite any evidence and only asserts brief legal conclusions. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 3.) No objections were filed and the time period to do so has expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations dated January 25, 2018 (Doc. No. 31) are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed on January 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 28) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
