(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman, et al.

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING 63 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Defendants' 50 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Smith Due to Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/4/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADAM SHARPE,

12

No. 1:19-cv-00711-DAD-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. CRYER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT SMITH
DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
(Doc. Nos. 50, 63)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Adam Sharpe is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

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

21

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

22

On April 23, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

23

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 50) be granted only as

24

to plaintiff’s claims against defendant Smith due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative

25

remedies prior to filing suit as is required. (Doc. No. 63.) The findings and recommendations

26

were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within

27

twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 13.) To date, no objections have been filed and the

28

time in which to do so has now passed.
1

1

The court notes, however, that on April 20, 2021, plaintiff mailed a document titled

2

“Opposition to defendant Smith’s Response to Court Order” to the court for filing, but that

3

document was not received by the Clerk of the Court for filing on the docket until April 26,

4

2021—a few days after the pending findings and recommendations were issued. (Doc. No. 64.)

5

Nevertheless, the court has considered plaintiff’s filing. In that opposition, plaintiff merely

6

restates the arguments that he presented in his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary

7

judgment as to plaintiff’s claim against defendant Smith. Those arguments were already

8

appropriately addressed in the pending findings and recommendations.

9

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

10

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

11

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

12
13

Accordingly,
1.

14
15

The findings and recommendations issued on April 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 63) are
adopted in full;

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s failure to

16

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required with respect to

17

plaintiff’s claim against defendant Smith in this action (Doc. No. 50) is granted;

18

3.

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Smith is dismissed without prejudice;

19

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate defendant Smith as a defendant in

20
21

this action; and
5.

22
23
24

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2