Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05389/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05389-13/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

DARRYLE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MOOR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05389-LJO-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 96)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART UNENUMERATED

RULE 12(b) MOTION

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO

RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Darryle Williams (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 November 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On November 29, 2007, defendants filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. On December 14,

Case 1:03-cv-05389-LJO -DLB Document 110 Filed 03/12/08 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

2007, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. On January 23,

2008, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days

within which to respond. On February 25, 2008, plaintiff filed

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 28,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed March

22, 2007, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

A. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Section

1983 claims for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit is

DENIED; and,

B. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state

law claims for medical malpractice is GRANTED and these claims

are DISMISSED, without prejudice; and,

3. Defendants respond to plaintiff’s amended complaint

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05389-LJO -DLB Document 110 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2