Jackson v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 32 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/27/2010. (Bradley, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 The motion sought dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies on Plaintiff's claims against D e fe n d a n ts Pantoja, Payan, Rubin, Selbach, W o o d , and Yoder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and all moving D e fe n d a n ts asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FATEEM L. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01414-LJO-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST (Docs. 32 & 39)

Plaintiff Fateem L. Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 April 21, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein, on the motion to dismiss1 filed by Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi, which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Neither side filed any objection(s). 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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

1

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 27 28

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 21, 2010 (Doc. 39), is adopted in full; and 2. The motion to dismiss filed, on November 23, 2009 (Doc. 32), by Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 May 27, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2