Birdsall v. James, et al.

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 44 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/5/2018: This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM BIRDSALL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1: 14-cv-01738-DAD-BAM

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

D. JAMES,

15

Defendant.
(Doc. No. 44)

16
17

Plaintiff William Birdsall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second

19

amended complaint (Doc. No. 17) asserting a due process violation claim against defendant

20

James.

21

Defendant James filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017. (Doc. No. 23.) On

22

August 10, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

23

recommending denial of defendant James’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 44.) The findings and

24

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto

25

were required to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 7–8.) More than fourteen days

26

have passed, and no objections have been filed.

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The court finds that the
1

1

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

2

Accordingly,

3

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 10, 2018 (Doc. No. 44) are

4

adopted in full;

5

2. Defendant James’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 23) is denied; and

6

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

7
8
9
10

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 5, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2