-EFB (PC) Jackson v. Williams, et al, No. 2:2009cv01261 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/14/11. Plaintiff's access to the courts claim is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Defendant's 18 motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. This action proceeds solely on plaintiff's retaliation claim. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
-EFB (PC) Jackson v. Williams, et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAYMOND D. JACKSON, SR., Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-1261 WBS EFB P B.C. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 16 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 17, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the 22 date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings 23 and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 //// 2 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 3 proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 17, 2011, are adopted in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 8 9 10 11 3. Defendant’s September 10, 2010 motion for summary judgment is denied as moot; and 4. This action proceeds solely on plaintiff’s retaliation claim. DATED: September 14, 2011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.