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)

Download PDF
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

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?