Bell v. Martel et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/22/2020 ADOPTING 91 Findings and Recommendations in full. The 86 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to defendants Quinto, Brown, and Spalding based on plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The motion is DENIED as to defendants Agapay, Gill, Go, Gatchalian, Simon, Urquidez, and Espino-Acevedo. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to defendants Wagner and Richardson because no arg ument was presented that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning the claims against these defendants. Defendants Quinto, Brown, and Spalding are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action. This action shall proceed against defendants Agapay, Gill, Go, Gatchalian, Simon, Uriquidez, Espino-Acevedo, Wagner, and Richardson. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL XAVIER BELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-00063-MCE-CKD

v.

ORDER

MICHAEL MARTEL, 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.
On July 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 91. Neither party

23

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

24
25

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to

26

keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service

27

of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

28

///
1

1

The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

2

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

3

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having

4

reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record

5

and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2020 (ECF No. 91), are ADOPTED

8

in full;

9

2. The motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 86) is GRANTED with respect to

10

defendants Quinto, Brown, and Spalding based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative

11

remedies. The motion is DENIED as to defendants Agapay, Gill, Go, Gatchalian, Simon,

12

Urquidez, and Espino-Acevedo;

13

3. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to defendants Wagner and

14

Richardson because no argument was presented that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

15

remedies concerning the claims against these defendants;

16
17
18
19
20
21

4. Defendants Quinto, Brown, and Spalding are DISMISSED without prejudice from this
action; and
5. This action shall proceed against defendants Agapay, Gill, Go, Gatchalian, Simon,
Uriquidez, Espino-Acevedo, Wagner, and Richardson.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 22, 2020

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2