(PC) Williams v. Kelso et al, No. 1:2021cv00090 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/04/2021. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:21-cv-00090-DAD-SAB (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CLARK J. KELSO, et al., (Doc. No. 3, 5) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Richard Williams, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 20 21 recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint be denied, without prejudice, as 22 premature because the assigned magistrate had not yet screened plaintiff’s complaint, which had 23 only recently been removed by defendant from state court on January 21, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 1, 5 24 at 1–2.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that 25 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Doc. 26 No. 5 at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed with the 27 court, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 adopted in full; 2. 8 9 12 Defendant’s motion to dismiss filed on January 27, 2021 (Doc. No. 3) is denied, without prejudice, as premature; and 3. 10 11 The findings and recommendations issued on January 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 5) are This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 4, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 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.
