Armstrong v. Spearman, et al.

Filing 51

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, Denying Without Prejudice Rule 12(B) Motion To Exhaustion Administrative Remedies, Denying Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State Cognizable Claim, And Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion To Amend (ECF Nos. 28 , 32 , 43 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/4/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00246-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE RULE 12(B) MOTION TO
EXHAUSTION ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES,
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE
TO STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM, AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION TO AMEND
[ECF Nos. 28, 32, 43]

Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

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

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

22

Recommendations which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that

23

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No Objections

24

were filed.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 9, 2014, is adopted in full; and

3

2.

Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion for failure to exhaust the administrative
remedies is DENIED without prejudice;

4
5

3.

cognizable claim for relief is DENIED; and

6
7

Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

4.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part and the action shall

8

proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint based on the cognizable claims set forth in

9

Magistrate Judge’s June 9, 2014, Findings and Recommendations.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: September 4, 2014

13

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2