Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02366-4/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 DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 1

2:05-CV-2366-RRB-CMK-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:05-CV-2366-RRB-CMK-P

ORDER

Plaintiff William Henry Price (“Plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se with a 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 and Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21).

On November 3, 2006, Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 29) herein which were

served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff 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 30.

Plaintiff’s objections, however, remain vague and nonspecific. 

WILLIAM HENRY PRICE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PAUL T. PARSONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 33 Filed 07/09/07 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 DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 2

2:05-CV-2366-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff suggests that he was denied access to the

courts through various means. Notwithstanding, the record is

replete with motions Plaintiff filed; all of which appear to have

been addressed appropriately. Plaintiff chose to proceed pro per,

which may explain some of the frustration he has expressed.

The Court concludes that the issues before it are based

in law, i.e., legal disputes. Further, in accordance with the

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. Based thereon, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. The court finds the Magistrate’s Findings and

Recommendations at Docket 29 to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis and includes them herein by reference.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket 29) filed

November 3, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Local

Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 33 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2