(PC) Williams v. Newsom

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 BENNY WILLIAMS, No. 2:19-cv-02229-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. — 16 — 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 20, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed timely 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. See ECF No. 66. Before this court issued its 24 order, plaintiff filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ECF No. 68, which that 25 court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting “the order challenged in the appeal is not final or 26 appealable.” ECF No. 71 (citing Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993) 27 (magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations not appealable; premature appeal not cured by 28 subsequent entry of final judgment by district court)). ] Because the appeal was dismissed and a mandate issued, see ECF No. 73, this court has 2 || jurisdiction to address the pending findings and recommendations regarding plaintiff's motion for 3 || summary judgment. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local 4 | Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the 5 || court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 6 | analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 20, 2021, ECF No. 60, are adopted in 9 | full; 10 2. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 39, is denied; and 11 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 12 || proceedings. 13 | DATED: December 8, 2021. — 14 — 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —