Doster v. Beard et al

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/25/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAMIEN T. DOSTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,
(Doc. No. 56)

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Damien T. Doster is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s

19

first amended complaint against defendants Chief Deputy Warden F. Vasquez, Yard Captain P.

20

Llamas, Sergeant Leon, and Maintenance Engineer Pavich in which he alleges the defendants

21

subjected him to unlawful conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22

(Doc. No. 13.) This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 24, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

24
25

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to

26

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit be granted in part and denied in part.

27

(Doc. No. 56.) The parties were provided fourteen days in which to file objections to those

28

/////
1

1

findings and recommendations. (Id.) To date, neither party has filed objections, and the time for

2

doing so has passed.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

4

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

5

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

6

Accordingly,

7

1.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff’s claims

8

concerning the alleged lack of cold water, plaintiff’s toilet backing up and

9

overflowing, lack of cleaning supplies, and his related negligence claims;

10

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff’s claims

11

against defendants Pavich, Vasquez, Leon, and Llamas concerning the alleged

12

deprivation of hot water in his cell and shower, and his related negligence claims;

13

3.

This case now proceeds only on plaintiff’s claim concerning deprivation of hot

14

water against defendants Pavich, Vasquez, Leon, and Llamas, and his related

15

negligence claims;

16

4.

17
18
19
20

All remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required; and

5.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 25, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2