Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02223/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02223-4/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 ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

2:02-CV-02223-RRB-KJM P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:02-CV-02223-RRB-KJM P

ORDER

Plaintiff Kelvin Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 16, 2007, Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 89) herein, which were

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties

that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be

filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed Objections to the

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations at Docket 91.

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are

based in law, i.e., legal disputes, and in accordance with the

KELVIN LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DIANE K. BUTLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:02-cv-02223-JAM -KJM Document 92 Filed 11/29/07 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 ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

2:02-CV-02223-RRB-KJM P

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the

Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings

filed in this matter. Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the

same, the court finds the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations

(Docket 89) to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket 89) filed

on August 16, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. The November 29, 2006, Motion for Summary Judgment

(Docket 84), filed by Defendants Dunne and Chapman, is GRANTED with

respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claim against Defendant Chapman,

but DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Remaining Claim against Defendant

Dunne;

3. Defendant Chapman is DISMISSED from this action;

4. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended pretrial

statement within thirty days; and

5. Defendant Dunne is ordered to file her pretrial

statement within fourteen days of service of Plaintiff’s amended

pretrial statement.

ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02223-JAM -KJM Document 92 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 2