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
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?