(PC) Williams v. Runnels, et al, No. 2:2006cv02381 - Document 96 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 12/9/2010 ADOPTING 85 Findings and Recommendations in full. Pltf's 73 Motion to present further evidence of imminent danger, construed as a Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. The 56 Motion to Dismiss filed by James, Roche and Cox is GRANTED. Pltf's 77 and 81 Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED as to James, Roche and Cox and DENIED without prejudice as to Scovel. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Williams v. Runnels, et al Doc. 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEVEN WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-06-2381 FCD KJM P vs. D.L. RUNNELS, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 16 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. On September 1, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 23 24 25 26 1 The court granted plaintiff a forty-five day extension in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations on September 30, 2010. See Docket No. 92. Plaintiff has since submitted other filings to the court, and in one of those documents he states that “plaintiff has filed his objections to the findings and recommendations.” See Docket No. 93. However, the court has not received any objections from plaintiff. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2010, are adopted in 7 8 9 10 11 12 full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to present further evidence of imminent danger, construed by the court as a motion to reconsider (Docket No. 73) is denied; 3. The motion to dismiss by defendants James, Roche and Cox (Docket No. 56) is granted for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and 4. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 77 and 81) are denied 13 as to defendants James, Roche and Cox and denied without prejudice as to defendant Scovel. 14 DATED: December 9, 2010. 15 16 17 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
