Clardy v. Jones et al

Filing 117

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 113 and concludes that Oregon Department of Corrections grievance process did not deprive Plaintiff of an effective administrative remedy. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies his claim is barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Therefore, Plaintiffs Complaint 2 is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 11/23/2020 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 11/24/2020.) (jkm)

Case 2:15-cv-01241-CL

Document 117

Filed 11/23/20

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SIR GIORGIO SANFORD CLARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.

JONES; STEINER; JOST; JUDY
GILMORE; JASON BELL; MILLER;
COLLETTE PETERS; WAGGONER;
BUGHER; MOONEY; JOHN AND
JANE DOES, all members of IPC
Committee,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

1 - ORDER

No. 2:15-cv-01241-CL
ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-01241-CL

Document 117

Filed 11/23/20

Page 2 of 3

This matter comes before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on all claims except for Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendant Jost. The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Jost and
remanded the case for the district court to determine in the first instance whether ODOC deprived
Plaintiff of an effective administrative remedy for his grievance against Defendant Jost. Magistrate

Judge Clarke issued a Findings and Recommendation [113] on June 16, 2020, in which he finds
that ODOC did not deprive Plaintiff of an effective administrative remedy and recommends that
the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Pl. Obj.,
ECF 115. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and concludes that there is no
basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent
portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation [113] and
concludes that Oregon Department of Corrections’ grievance process did not deprive Plaintiff of
an effective administrative remedy. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies his claim is barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Complaint [2] is dismissed with prejudice.
2 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-01241-CL

Document 117

Filed 11/23/20

Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 23, 2020
DATED: _______________________.

___________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER