Williams v. Cates et al

Filing 70

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION And Denying Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 12(B)(6) (ECF Nos. 22 , 50 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/31/2014. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 10, 2014, are ADOPTED in full. Defendants Agu, Valdivia, Sica, and Trimbles motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is DENIED. Defendants Agu, Validivia, Sica and Trimble are DIRECTED to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

HORACE MANN WILLIAMS,

12

Case No. 1:12-cv-00730 LJO DLB PC

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(B)(6)

MARISOL, et al.,
[ECF Nos. 22, 50]

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Horace Mann Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

On September 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

20 recommended Defendant’s Agu, Valdivia, Sica, and Trimble’s motion to dismiss pursuant to
21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) be DENIED and Defendants Agu, Validivia, Sica and Trimble be
22 DIRECTED to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint.

The Findings and

23 Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be
24 filed within twenty-one (21) days. Over twenty-one days have passed and no party has filed
25 objections.
26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

27 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
28 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2 1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 10, 2014, are ADOPTED in full;

3 2.

Defendants Agu, Valdivia, Sica, and Trimble’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.

4 Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is DENIED; and
5 3.

Defendants Agu, Validivia, Sica and Trimble are DIRECTED to file an answer to the

6 First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order.
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

October 31, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2