William Soto v. Aramark, et al.

E.D. California

William Soto v. Aramark, et al.

DecidedSeptember 29, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01066

StatusUnknown

This text of William Soto v. Aramark, et al. (William Soto v. Aramark, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Soto v. Aramark, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM SOTO, No. 2:25-cv-01066-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ARAMARK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William Soto (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On July 30, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court has reviewed the file and finds 26 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 27 analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2025 (ECF No. 9) are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to 5 comply with court rules and orders; 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Date: September 26, 2025 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM SOTO, No. 2:25-cv-01066-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ARAMARK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William Soto (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On July 30, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court has reviewed the file and finds 26 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 27 analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2025 (ECF No. 9) are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to 5 comply with court rules and orders; 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Date: September 26, 2025 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

William Soto v. Aramark, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-soto-v-aramark-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack