From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Freeze

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 19, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-2894-KJM-KJN-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-2894-KJM-KJN-P

12-19-2013

ANDRES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. FREEZE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 24, 2013, the magistrate judge filed 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 24, 2013, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendants Swarthout, Freeze, Hardy, Foston, and Allen are dismissed from this action without prejudice.

_____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Williams v. Freeze

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 19, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-2894-KJM-KJN-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013)
Case details for

Williams v. Freeze

Case Details

Full title:ANDRES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. FREEZE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 19, 2013

Citations

No. 2:12-cv-2894-KJM-KJN-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013)