(PC) Hill v. Williams, et al, No. 1:2003cv06661 - Document 55 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL 52 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING 42 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENYING 47 Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/28/2009. This Action is Concluded in its Entirety, CASE CLOSED. (Arellano, S.)

Download PDF
(PC) Hill v. Williams, et al Doc. 55 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 RICHARD ROSCOE HILL, 5 CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6661-LJO DLB-P Plaintiff, 6 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. 52) 7 W.R. WILLIAMS, et al., 8 Defendants. / 9 10 Plaintiff Richard Roscoe Hill, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has 11 filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 12 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 13 On December 12, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 14 which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 15 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On January 5, 2009, plaintiff 16 filed an Objection. 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 18 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 19 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. 22 The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 12, 2008, is adopted in full; and 23 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed August 5, 2008 is GRANTED and 24 Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment filed October 14, 2008 is DENIED, 25 thus concluding this action in its entirety. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: b9ed48 January 28, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com

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.