Williams v. Sandham et al

Filing 124

ORDER adopting 122 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/29/10: Defendant Steen's April 21, 2010 114 Motion is denied and is stricken. Plaintiff's May 13, 2010 116 Motion is denied as moot. Plainti ff is directed to file and serve his pretrial statement and any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial within thirty days of the date of this order. Defendants are directed to file their pretrial statement not later than thirty days after the filing of plaintiff's statement. (Kaminski, H)

(PC) Williams v. Sandham et al

Doc. 124

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 vs. R. W. SANDHAM, et al., Defendants. / 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 12, 2010, 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 fourteen 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
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CURTIS J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0164 JAM EFB P

ORDER

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
/

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 12, 2010, are adopted in full; 2. Defendant Steen's April 21, 2010 "Motion to Amend Pretrial Scheduling Order and for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment" (Dckt. No. 114) is construed as a request for reconsideration of this court's March 29, 2007 order denying summary judgment of plaintiff's claim that defendant Steen violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him Muracel 1%, and, so construed, is denied; 3. Defendant Steen's April 21, 2010 "Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment" (also contained in Dckt. No. 114) is stricken; 4. Plaintiff's May 13, 2010 "Motion for 30 or 60 Day Extension of Time" (Dckt. No. 116) is denied as moot; 5. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve his pretrial statement and any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial within thirty days of the date of this order; and 6. Defendants are directed to file their pretrial statement not later than thirty days after the filing of plaintiff's statement. DATED: September 29, 2010.

/s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2