(PC) Williams v. Bahadur et al, No. 2:2013cv02052 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/7/2015 ORDERING that the 24 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Defendants' 15 motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
(PC) Williams v. Bahadur et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABE WILLIAMS, JR., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-2052-TLN-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER S. BAHADUR, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 8, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff and Defendants 23 have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. The Court notes that Defendants have raised an argument in their objections that was 28 not contained in their Motion to Dismiss (arguing that Plaintiff’s due process claim is not 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 premised on a liberty interest protected by the Constitution). (ECF No. 25 at 7-8.) The Court 2 declines to consider this argument, as Defendants have offered no explanation of why it was not 3 included in the motion, which would have allowed Plaintiff to respond to it and the magistrate 4 judge to consider it. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1208-09 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a 5 district judge may exercise her discretion in determining whether to consider arguments or 6 evidence presented for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 8, 2015, are adopted in full; and 9 2. Defendants’ September 30, 2014 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is denied. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 7, 2015 13 14 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.