Coleman v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/8/15 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/22/15 67 are ADOPTED in full; and Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment 45 is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Defendants Virga and DeRoco are directed to file an answer within twenty-one days of service of this order.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT COLEMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1021 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

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

19

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

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 22, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

21
22

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

23

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On August 7, 2015,

24

plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,” which this court

25

construes as plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26
27

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

28

////
1

1

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

2

analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 22, 2015, are adopted in full; and

5

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) is granted in part, and denied

6
7
8
9

in part, as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Haring are dismissed without prejudice,
based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies;
b. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Virga, DeRoco, and Clough that plaintiff

10

was denied access to outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment are

11

dismissed without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

12

remedies;

13
14

c. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Clough are dismissed without prejudice
based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and

15

d. The motion for summary judgment by defendants Virga and DeRoco as to

16

plaintiff’s equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment are denied; and

17

3. Defendants Virga and DeRoco are directed to file an answer within twenty-one days of

18

service of this order.

19

DATED: December 8, 2015

20

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2