Lawson v. Youngblood

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING 71 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 64 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/19/2014. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RICHARD ALAN LAWSON, Case No. 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS (PC) 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 16 DONALD YOUNGBLOOD, et al., (ECF Nos. 64, 71) 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Richard Alan Lawson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On January 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed May 29, 2013 should be denied. On February 6, 2014, Defendants filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 1 1 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis. 3 Defendants object that statements made by Plaintiff immediately following the 4 incident were neither intended as nor sufficient as a verbal grievance; and that the KCSD 5 grievance process remained available to Plaintiff after his transfer to Lerdo because he 6 returned to the Downtown Jail (where the alleged incident occurred) on at least two 7 subsequent occasions. However, these Objections are not supported by the KCSD 8 grievance procedure for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge and argue matters not 9 before the Magistrate Judge. Defendants Objections do not raise an issue of law or fact 10 under the Findings and Recommendations. 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. 2014 (ECF No. 71), in full, and 13 14 The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on January 23, 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed May 29, 2013 (ECF No. 64) is DENIED. 15 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill February 19, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?