Brothers, II v. Buenafe et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING 62 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 39 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/24/2021. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AUBREY LEE BROTHERS, II,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:17-cv-00607-NONE-HBK
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

CHITA BUENAFE, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 39, 62)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Aubrey Lee Brothers, II, is appearing in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

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

19

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

20

On September 30, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon

22

plaintiff’s purported failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit be denied.

23

(Doc. Nos. 39, 62.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

24

notice that objections were due within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. No. 62 at 4.) Defendants filed

25

objections. (Doc. No. 65.)

26

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

27

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendants’

28

objections, the court concludes that the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and
1

1

recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Defendants reiterate in

2

their objections the argument that plaintiff’s inmate grievance did not alert defendants to the

3

nature of plaintiff’s claims. The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge that the inmate

4

grievance in question sufficiently put prison officials on notice of the harm plaintiff alleges in this

5

suit, namely the ongoing pain from which he allegedly suffers following a “botched” dental

6

procedure performed during his imprisonment.

7

Accordingly,

8

1.

9
10

are adopted in full;
2.

11
12
13
14
15

The findings and recommendations issued on September 30, 2020 (Doc. No. 62),

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on November 5, 2019 (Doc. No.
39) is denied; and

3.

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 24, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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