-KJN (PC) Williams v. Huffman et al, No. 2:2011cv00638 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/28/11 ADOPTING 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 20 Motion to Dismiss based on an alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies and GRANTING Motion on Eleventh Amendment grounds only to the extent that plaintiff seeks damages against defendants in their official capacity. (Meuleman, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PC) Williams v. Huffman et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIO WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:11-cv-0638 GEB KJN P vs. JASON T. HUFFMAN, 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 September 9, 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. Neither 22 party has 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 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 9, 2011, are adopted in full; 3 4 2. The August 5, 2011 motion to dismiss based on an alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies (dkt. no. 20) is denied; and 5 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds is granted 6 only to the extent that plaintiff seeks damages against defendants in their official capacity.1 7 Dated: October 28, 2011 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 1 26 Defendants Traquina, Austin and Mefford filed an answer on September 28, 2011. (Dkt. No. 29.) 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.
