Torres v. Gipson et al
Filing
86
ORDER Adopting 81 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Defendants' 64 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/12/19. Matter Referred Back to Magistrate Judge. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JUAN MATIAS TORRES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
(Docs. 64, 81)
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN
17
18
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01525-LJO-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 15, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed timely objections,
and Plaintiff has filed a response.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed April 15, 2019 (Doc. 81), are adopted in full;
1
2
3
4
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies (Doc. 64) is DENIED; and
3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent
with this Order.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
June 12, 2019
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?