-DAD (PC) Willis v. Weeks, No. 2:2009cv00342 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 01/18/12 and ORDERING that defendant Weeks' 33 Motion for Summary Judgment based on plaintiffs failure to exhaust his Eighth Amendment claim p rior to bringing this action is GRANTED; plaintiff's 34 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. This matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation allegations. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (PC) Willis v. Weeks Doc. 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT WILLIS, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0342 MCE DAD P Defendant. ORDER vs. R. WEEKS, 15 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 October 21, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 21, 2011 (ECF No. 56), are 3 ADOPTED in full; and 4 5 2. Defendant Weeks’ motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his Eighth Amendment claim prior to bringing this action (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED; 6 7 8 9 3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is DENIED without prejudice; and 4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation allegations. 10 11 12 13 Dated: January 18, 2012 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
