Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05942/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05942-8/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

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. JUNG, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05942-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 73 and

74)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc.

70)

Plaintiff Lonnie 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 Rule 72-302.

On December 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed two Findings

and Recommendations which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On

January 6, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate 

///

Case 1:03-cv-05942-OWW -LJO Document 78 Filed 02/23/06 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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this

action.

 On January 23, 2006, Plaintiff, without leave of court, purported to file a fifth amended complaint. Perusal of the new 

unauthorized complaint reveals it does not state a claim. The fifth

amended complaint must be stricken. 

 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 December 15,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed October 6, 2005, is DENIED; and

3. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

 4. Plaintiff’s purported fifth amended complaint filed 

 Without leave of court is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05942-OWW -LJO Document 78 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2