McClintock v. Colosimo

Full title: JOHN McCLINTOCK, Plaintiff, v. COLOSIMO, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 16, 2015

2:13-cv-0264 TLN DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015)

Opinion

JOHN McCLINTOCK, Plaintiff, v. COLOSIMO, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-0264 TLN DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. April 16, 2015

          ORDER

          TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         On March 5, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 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 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 5, 2015, are adopted in full;

2. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Casillas and Merriweather based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required (ECF No. 35) is granted; and

3. Defendants Casillas and Merriweather are dismissed from this action without prejudice.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.