Dodds v. Lascano et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/20/2011 adopting 42 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 30 Motion to Dismiss by B. Williams; granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Dismiss by J. Hamlin and E. Lascano and requiring them to serve and file an answer. (Filing Deadline: 10/11/2011). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JAYMAR DODDS,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00656-AWI-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

v.
(DOC. 42)

12
13

E. LASCANO, et al.,
DEFENDANTS LASCANO AND HAMLIN’S
ANSWER DUE WITHIN TWENTY (20)
DAYS

Defendants.

14

/

15
16

Plaintiff Jaymar Dodds (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2010 and April 6, 2011,

18

Defendants filed motions to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Def. Williams’s Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 30; Defs. Lascano and

20

Hamlin’s Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 36. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On July 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

23

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and

24

Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party filed a timely Objection

25

to the Findings and Recommendations.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de

27

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

28

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 13, 2011, is adopted in full;

3

2.

Defendant Williams’s motion to dismiss, filed November 15, 2010, is GRANTED

4

in full;

5

3.

6

Defendant Williams is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

7

4.

8

Defendants Lascano and Hamlin’s motion to dismiss, filed April 6, 2011, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

9

5.

Plaintiff’s condition of confinement claim against Defendant Lascano is dismissed

10

without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant

11

to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

12

6.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DENIED; and

13

7.

Defendants Lascano and Hamlin are to serve and file an answer within twenty (20)

14
15
16
17

days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ciem0h

September 20, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2