Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01828-9/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

DAVID LYN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

1:06-cv-01828-LJO-NEW (DLB) P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 20)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 18 & 19)

Plaintiff David Lyn 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 April 13, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On May

18, 2007, plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:06-cv-01828-LJO -GSA Document 33 Filed 06/14/07 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

27

28

On May 18, 2007, plaintiff filed a 1 notice of appeal of the Findings

and Recommendations. Although the filing of a notice of appeal generally

divests a district court of jurisdiction to determine the “substantial rights”

at issue in an action during the pendency of the appeal, Pyrodyne Corp. v.

Pyrotronics Corp., 847 F. 2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1988), an exception to this

rule exists where a deficiency in the notice of appeal “is clear to the

district court.” Ruby v. Secretary of the United States Navy, 365 F. 2d 385,

389 (9th Cir. 1966). In such a case the district court may proceed with the

case “knowing that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction.” Id. Because it

is completely “clear to the district court” that no appeal lies from a

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, this Court knows “that it has

not been deprived of jurisdiction” over this action. 

2

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 April 13, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and, 1

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed March 16, 2007, and March 30, 2007, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01828-LJO -GSA Document 33 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 2