Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00341/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00341-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

TEHACHAPI CONFINEMENT, SHU,

Defendant. 

 /

1:06-cv-00341-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

Willie Weaver (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding

pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which recommended the court dismiss this

action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. The Findings

and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained

notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within fifteen (15) days. On

June 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. On July 6,

2006, the court granted plaintiff an additional twenty (20) days

within which to respond. On July 21, 2006, plaintiff filed

Case 1:06-cv-00341-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff cannot maintain a

cause of action based on an alleged improper move because prison

inmates do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at

a particular correctional facility or to be transferred from one

facility to another. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25

(1976).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 18, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00341-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2