Birdsall v. James, 1: 14-cv-01738-DAD-BAM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180906805
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 44) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff William Birdsall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's second amended complaint (Doc. No. 17) asserting a due process violation claim against defendant James. Defendant James filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 44) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff William Birdsall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's second amended complaint (Doc. No. 17) asserting a due process violation claim against defendant James. Defendant James filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017...
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 44)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff William Birdsall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's second amended complaint (Doc. No. 17) asserting a due process violation claim against defendant James.
Defendant James filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017. (Doc. No. 23.) On August 10, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending denial of defendant James' motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 44.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were required to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 7-8.) More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 10, 2018 (Doc. No. 44) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant James' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 23) is denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
