Cortinas v. Huerta et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 24 Defendant Scalia's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and ORDER DISMISSING Without Prejudice, Plaintiff's Retaliation Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/20/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

12
13
14
15

1:17-cv-00130-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 33.)

vs.
M. HUERTA, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
SCALIA’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE
TO EXHAUST
(ECF No. 24.)

Defendants.

16
17

ORDER DISMISSING RETALIATION
CLAIM, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

18
19
20

Larry William Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

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

22

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

23

On June 11, 2018, findings and recommendations were filed, recommending that

24

defendant Scalia’s motion for partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust be granted. (ECF

25

No. 33.) On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF

26

No. 34.) On July 9, 2018, defendant Scalia filed a reply to the objections. (ECF No. 35.)

27

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

28

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
1

1

including Plaintiff’s objections and defendant Scalia’s reply, the Court finds the findings and

2

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

4

1.

5
6

2018, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2.

7
8

11

Defendant Scalia’s motion for partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust,
filed on December 27, 2017, is GRANTED;

3.

9
10

The findings and recommendations filed by the Magistrate Judge on June 11,

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit; and

4.

The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including the issuance of a new scheduling order reopening discovery.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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