Quiroga v. Graves et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING 76 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Plaintiff's 72 Motion to Amend and GRANTING Defendant's 62 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/2019. Case Closed. (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA III,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SERGEANT GRAVES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

No. 1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. No. 76)

17
18
19

Plaintiff, Monico J. Quiroga III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

21

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22
23

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied and defendant Fuentez’s motion for

24

summary judgment due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing

25

suit as required be granted. (Doc. No. 76.) The findings and recommendations were served on

26

plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.)

27

No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

28

/////
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6
7

adopted in full;
2.

8
9

Defendant Fuentez’s motion for summary judgment, filed on June 18, 2019, (Doc.
No. 62), is granted;

3.

10
11

The findings and recommendations filed on August 20, 2019, (Doc. No. 76), are

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, filed on July 29, 2019, (Doc. No. 72), is
denied because granting leave to amend would be futile;

4.

12

This case is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit;

13

5.

All other pending motions are denied as moot; and

14

6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 19, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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