Armstrong v. Young et al

Filing 51

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/7/13 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff claims against defendants Turner and Young be dismissed with prejudice on res judicata grounds; Plaintiffs claims against John Doe be dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiffs failure to first exhaust administrative remedies; and the Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0123 TLN KJN P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

D. YOUNG, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
By order filed June 28, 2013, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within thirty days, why

17
18

plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants, Turner, Young, and John Doe should not be

19

dismissed.1 The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or

20

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

22

1.

Plaintiff claims against defendants Turner and Young be dismissed with prejudice on
res judicata grounds;

23

2. Plaintiff’s claims against John Doe be dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff’s

24
25

failure to first exhaust administrative remedies; and

26

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action.

27
28

1

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Brewer were dismissed on September 25, 2012, and claims
against defendant Chandler were dismissed on July 29, 2013. (ECF Nos. 24 & 50.)
1

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

4

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

5

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

6

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

7

(9th Cir. 1991).

8

Dated: August 7, 2013

9
10
11

arms0123.fsc

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2