Reno Rios v. Gipson et al

Filing 83

ORDER GRANTING 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER ADOPTING 81 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Defendants J. Briggs, DDS; Robert S. Pringle, DDS; and Dental Supervisor David Shampain and Plaintiff's claims regarding dental care and treatment are DISMISSED without prejudice; action referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further processing, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 09/18/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RENO FUENTES RIOS,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

GIPSON, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:12-cv-01334-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docs. 65, 81)

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff, Reno Fuentes Rios, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

17

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

18

On August 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations to grant

19

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s dental claim, which was served on the

20

parties and notified the parties that objections were to be filed within twenty-one days. (Doc. 81.)

21

Plaintiff filed objections in which he reasserts arguments and contentions from his opposition

22

which were considered and addressed in the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 82.)

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 18, 2017 (Doc. 81), are
adopted in full;
1

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the

1
2

available administrative remedies on his dental claims under the Eighth

3

Amendment prior to filing suit in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), filed on

4

November 1, 2016 (Doc. 65), is GRANTED;

5

3. Defendants J. Briggs, DDS; Robert S. Pringle, DDS; and Dental Supervisor David

6

Shampain and Plaintiff’s claims regarding dental care and treatment are

7

DISMISSED without prejudice; and

8

4. the action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further processing.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 18, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2