(PC) Wilson v. Baker, et. al., No. 2:2006cv00537 - Document 81 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 9/4/2009 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed 7/29/2009 are adopted in full; Dfts' motion to dismiss (Docket # 72) is denied; Dfts' 8/6/2009, motion for reconsideration (Docket # 78) is granted; dfts' summary judgment motion is due within thirty days of the date of this order.(Matson, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wilson v. Baker, et. al. Doc. 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-06-0537 FCD GGH P A. BAKER, et al., 14 Defendants. / 15 16 ORDER Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 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 General Order No. 262. 19 On July 29, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendants have filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com On August 6, 2009, defendants filed a request for reconsideration of the 1 2 magistrate judge’s order filed July 29, 2009, granting them thirty days to file a summary 3 judgment motion within thirty days of the date of that order. Defendants request that their 4 summary judgment motion be due within thirty days of the instant order instead. Good cause 5 appearing, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is granted. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 29, 2009 are adopted in full; 8 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket # 72) is denied; 9 3. Defendants’ August 6, 2009, motion for reconsideration (Docket # 78) is 10 granted; defendants’ summary judgment motion is due within thirty days of the date of this 11 order. 12 DATED: September 4, 2009. 13 14 15 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
