Coats v. Chaudhri et al

Filing 97

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 96 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/30/2019. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CHAUDHRI, et al.,

Case No. 1:13-cv-02032-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 96)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff William Thomas Coats (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred

19

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

20

On September 6, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and

21

recommendations that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff’s federal claims on

22

the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the Court decline to

23

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss those claims

24

without prejudice. (ECF No. 96.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties,

25

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 9–10.)

26

No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired.

27
28

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of
this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and
1

1

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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 6, 2019, (ECF No. 96), are

4

adopted in full;

5

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 92), is granted as to Plaintiff’s federal

6

claims on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies;

7

3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

8

claims against Defendants Gladden, Nguyen, Gundran, Convalecer, and Fairchild, and

9

those claims are dismissed without prejudice; and

10

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2019
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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