Matthews v. Taylor et al

Filing 130

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation 119 . The claims against the State Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Because there are outstanding defendants and claims in this case, Cour t declines to enter judgment on Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff shall have additional time to discover the identities of and serve the Doe and Mailroom defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 9/17/2018 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (Copy of order mailed to Plaintiff.) (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DANIEL J. MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
No. 2:16-cv-01958-SB
v.
ORDER
J. TAYLOR, Superintendent Eastern
Oregon Correctional Institution, et. al.,
Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation [119] on April 24,
2018, in which she recommends that this Court grant the State Defendants’ Partial Motion for
Summary Judgment for Lack of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies [40] and Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Merits [75]. 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 timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
Pl. Obj., ECF 126. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &
1 - ORDER

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).
Among other things, Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that this Court dismiss the
Doe defendants and to the F&R’s failure to address his claims regarding issues with his mail. Pl.
Obj. 3, 10–11. Neither the Doe defendants nor the Mailroom Staff have appeared or been served
in this case. See Wavier of Service, ECF 36 (Defense counsel declining to waive service on
behalf of the Doe and Mailroom defendants). Judge Beckerman recommends dismissing the
claims against the Doe defendants on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to serve or identify
these defendants and has not sought the Court’s assistance in doing so. F&R 27. The F&R does
not otherwise address Plaintiff’s claims against the mailroom.
However, a review of the record demonstrates that Plaintiff has indicated difficulties in
ascertaining these defendants’ identities throughout the litigation and appears to have sought
assistance from the Court on at least one occasion. Pl. Mot. Ext. Discov., ECF 35; Pl. Resp.
Mot. Stay, ECF 44; Pl. Mot Compel, ECF 66. Moreover, because discovery was limited solely to
issues pertaining to whether Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies, Plaintiff has had
little opportunity to seek this information. See Order, ECF 47; Order at 3, ECF 98. In addition,
because the mailroom defendants have not appeared or been served in this case, there is no
evidence in the record regarding Plaintiff’s grievances against the mailroom. Accordingly, the
Court declines to dismiss these defendants at this time.
The Court has carefully considered the rest of Plaintiff’s objections and concludes there
is no other basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the

2 - ORDER

pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no other error in the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and
Recommendation [119]. The claims against the State Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
Because there are outstanding defendants and claims in this case, Court declines to enter
judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff shall have additional time to discover the identities of
and serve the Doe and Mailroom defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _____________ day of _________________, 2018.

____________________________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER