(PC) Wilson v. Tilton et al, No. 2:2007cv01192 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/12/2010 ORDERING 44 Findings and Recommendations are adopted in full; Defendants' 1/26/2010 motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is denied; and Defendants are ordered to file a response to plaintiff's complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Wilson v. Tilton et al Doc. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID WILSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-07-1192 GEB DAD P vs. JAMES TILTON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 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 Rule 302. 19 On June 16, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to defendants that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. 22 Defendants have not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 16, 2010, are adopted in full; 2 2. Defendants’ January 26, 2010 motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 3 status and motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is denied; and 4 5 6 3. Defendants are ordered to file a response to plaintiff’s complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. Dated: July 12, 2010 7 8 9 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 10 11 12 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.