Brown v. Brown

Filing 16

ORDER adopting in full 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/5/12. Plaintiff's second and third claims for relief are dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DEXTER BROWN,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-12-0934 KJM KJN P

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

16
17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 6, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

19
20

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

21

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has not filed

22

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

23
24

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

25

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

26

/////
1

1

1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

2

be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 6, 2012, are adopted in full; and

4

2. Plaintiff’s second and third claims for relief are dismissed based on plaintiff’s

5

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.1

6

DATED: September 5, 2012.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26

Plaintiff affirmatively stated in his complaint that he did not exhaust his administrative
remedies as to claims II and III. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2; 11 at 5.)
2