Guzman v. Marshall et al

Filing 25

ORDER DISREGARDING Plaintiff's Objections 24 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/25/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAFAEL GUZMAN,

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:12-cv-00828-LJO-SAB

v.
(ECF No. 24)

14

JOHN MARSHALL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Rafael Guzman is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 21, 2012.
20 On February 18, 2014, an order issued finding cognizable claims and on March 10, 2014 the
21 United States Marshal was directed to serve the second amended complaint. On May 12, 2014,
22 Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed an objection to the
23 answer addressing the issue of his exhaustion of administrative remedies.
24

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in relevant part, that there shall be a

25 complaint, an answer, and a reply to an answer if the court orders one. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The
26 Court has not ordered a reply to the answer and declines to make such an order. Therefore
27 Plaintiff’s objection to the answer shall be disregarded.
28

1

1

Plaintiff is advised that should the defendants file a motion for summary judgment based

2 upon Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, he will be provided with an
3 opportunity to file an objection at that time.
4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection, filed June 23, 2014, is

5 DISREGARDED.
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 25, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2