Galicia v. Marsh et al

Filing 63

ORDER adopting 61 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/17/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE GALICIA,

12

No. 1:16-cv-00011-DAD-SAB
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

T. MARSH et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 40, 61)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Jose Galicia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

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

22

On June 8, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

23

recommending that the motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of defendants M.

24

Jennings and A. Guzman based upon plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies

25

prior to filing suit be granted as to defendant Guzman and denied as to defendant Jennings. (Doc.

26

No. 61.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

27

that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) The time to file objections has

28

passed, and no objections have been filed.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Accordingly,

5

1. The June 8, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 61) are adopted in full;

6

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part;

7

3. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Guzman is dismissed, without prejudice, due to

8

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that claim

9

prior to filing suit as required; and

10

4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent

11
12
13

with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 17, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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