Huapaya v. Davey et al

Filing 56

ORDER ADOPTING 52 Findings and Recommendations and Granting Defendants' 46 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/26/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ENRIQUE HUAPAYA,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-01441-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

D. DAVEY, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. Nos. 46, 52)

16
17

Plaintiff Enrique Huapaya is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

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

19

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

20

On August 27, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 52.) The

22

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

23

objections were due within thirty days after service. (Id. at 13.) On September 30, 2019, plaintiff

24

timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 55.)

25

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

26

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

27

objections to the findings and recommendations, the court finds the findings and

28

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1

1

The pending findings and recommendations conclude that plaintiff failed to exhaust

2

administrative remedies prior to filing suit as to his claims against defendants Pauk1, Satterfield,

3

and Radcliffe and failed to comply with the California Government Claims Act before bringing

4

his state law claims against defendants Pauk, Satterfield, Radcliffe, and Witt. (Doc. No. 52 at 12–

5

13.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s claims against defendants Pauk,

6

Satterfield, and Radcliffe be dismissed, without prejudice, and that plaintiff’s state law claims

7

also be dismissed. (Id. at 13.)

8
9

Though plaintiff filed a document captioned as objections, (Doc. No. 55), it does not
appear to the court that plaintiff actually objects to the findings and recommendations. Instead,

10

plaintiff states that he “moves in request further proceedings towards defendants Pisciotta and

11

Witt.” (Doc. No. 55 at 16–18.) Plaintiff also indicates that he will seek to exhaust his

12

administrative remedies as to defendants Pauk , Satterfield, and Radcliffe “for a later time to

13

return based on the dismissal without prejudice.” (Id. at 21–24.) Neither of these statements by

14

plaintiff constitute an objection to the pending findings and recommendations.

15

Accordingly,

16

1.

17

The findings and recommendations issued on August 27, 2019 (Doc. No. 52) are
adopted in full;

18

2.

19

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on June 27, 2019 (Doc. No. 46),
is granted;

20

3.

The claims against defendants Satterfield, Pauk, and Radcliffe are dismissed,

21

without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies

22

prior to filing suit; and

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26
27
28

1

The court notes that this defendant’s name is sometimes spelled “Paugh” in the parties’ filings
and the magistrate’s findings and recommendations. This defendant’s name appears spelled as
“Pauk” on the court’s docket. Accordingly, that is the spelling used throughout this order.
2

1

4.

2
3
4

Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed for failure to comply with the California
Government Claims Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 26, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3