From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 28, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-1687 LKK AC (P) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-1687 LKK AC (P)

03-28-2013

MARIO A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who proceed in this action in pro se and in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On January 31, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-eight days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 31, 2013, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is denied, without prejudice to renewal of the defense of qualified immunity on summary judgment.

________________________

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Williams v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 28, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-1687 LKK AC (P) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Williams v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:MARIO A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 28, 2013

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-1687 LKK AC (P) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013)