Cordero v. Guzman et al

Filing 100

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/2016 DENYING 97 Motion for Extension of Time as unnecessary; ADOPTING IN FULL 88 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 50 Motion for Summary Judgment as to the plaintiff's claims against Defendant Parra on grounds that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY M. CORDERO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER

NICK GUZMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

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

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On December 23, 2015, 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.
On January 28, 2016, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff twenty-one days to file

23
24

supplemental objections. (ECF No. 96.) On February 22, 2016, plaintiff a motion for extension

25

of time to file his supplemental objections and his supplemental objections. (ECF Nos. 97, 98.)

26

Pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff’s supplemental objections are timely. Accordingly, the

27

motion for extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

28

////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

2

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

3

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

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 97) is denied as unnecessary;

7

2. The findings and recommendations filed December 23, 2015, are adopted in full; and

8

3. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 50) is granted as to plaintiff’s claims

9
10

against defendant Parra on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
DATED: March 29, 2016

11

/s/ John A. Mendez__________________________

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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