James v. Mehta
Filing
175
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/9/2014 ADOPTING IN FULL 158 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 138 Motion to Dismiss. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:10-cv-1171 LKK DAD P
v.
ORDER
DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action
18
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On November 5, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations, and plaintiff has filed a reply.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2013, are adopted in full; and
3
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. No.
4
5
138) is denied
DATED: January 9, 2014.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?