(PC)Williams v. Cate, et al., No. 1:2009cv00468 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER re: 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 1/26/2010. The Court Hereby ORDERS That: The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on December 15, 2009, are adopted in full; and Plaintiffs Due Process claim, and Defendants Cate, Billings, Pfeiffer andGrannis are dismissed. R. Grannis; C. Pfeifer; T. Billings and Matthew Cate terminated.(Bradley, A)

Download PDF
(PC)Williams v. Cate, et al. Doc. 26 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 ALLEN B. WILLIAMS, 8 Plaintiff, 1: 09 CV 00468 OWW YNP SMS (PC) vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS (#20) 9 10 11 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter 16 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 17 Rule 72-302. 18 On December 15, 2009, findings and recommendations were entered, 19 recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s Due Process claim and Defendants Cate, Billings, Pfeiffer 20 and Grannis. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. On 21 January 12, 2010 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 23 73-305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 24 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 25 proper analysis. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 3 4 5 December 15, 2009, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s Due Process claim, and Defendants Cate, Billings, Pfeiffer and Grannis are dismissed. 6 7 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 26, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.