Sutherland v. Herrmann et al

Filing 32

ORDER adopting in full 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/5/10. Pltf's request to augment his opposition to dfts' motion to dismiss 31 is DENIED. Dfts' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit 17 is DENIED.(Kastilahn, A)

(PC) Sutherland v. Herrmann et al

Doc. 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. S. HERRMANN, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 7, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Defendants have not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. On June 10, 2010, however, plaintiff filed a motion to augment his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. While that could be construed as an objection in that it was filed three days after the filing of the findings and recommendations, the court notes that plaintiff dated it June 6, 2010, a day before the findings and recommendations were filed. Further, the court can discern no valid reason to permit 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM YOUNG SUTHERLAND, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2391 WBS DAD P

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

plaintiff to augment the record when he prevailed on the motion. Therefore, plaintiff's request to augment his opposition to defendants' motion will not be construed as an objection to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and will be denied. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request to augment his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 31) is denied; 2 The findings and recommendations filed June 7, 2010, are adopted in full; and 3. Defendants' February 10, 2010 motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. No. 17) is denied. DATED: August 5, 2010

/suth2391.801

2