Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06052/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06052-8/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

DALE G. WILLS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:98-cv-06052-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 209)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 168)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 173)

ORDER CONCLUDING ENTIRE ACTION

Plaintiff, Dale G. Wills (“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 February 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On March 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. 

Case 1:98-cv-06052-OWW -DLB Document 217 Filed 03/29/06 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

On March 8, 2006, the court granted plaintiff an additional ten

(10) days within which to respond. On March 21, 2006, plaintiff

filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation.

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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 10,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed May 6,

2005, is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed May 17,

2005, is DENIED; and,

4. This action is therefore CONCLUDED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-06052-OWW -DLB Document 217 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2