Fosselman v. Cate et al

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING 43 Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING Defendants' 38 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/14/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LORENZO FOSSELMAN, JR.,

12

No. 1:12-cv-01302-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

D. DIMMER and JOHNSON,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 38 & 43)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Lorenzo Fosselman, Jr. is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to

19
20

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 18, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

22
23

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff’s alleged failure to

24

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit be denied. (Doc. No. 43.) The findings

25

and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto

26

were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) More than thirty days have passed, and no objections

27

have been filed.

28

/////
1

1

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

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1. The May 18, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 43) are adopted in full;

6

and
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust

7
8
9
10

his administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. No. 38) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2