Opinion
1:20-cv-00005-DAD-JLT (PC)
12-07-2021
PAUL NIVARD BEATON, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY STATE PRISON and J. VALENZUELA-QUEZADA, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT VALENZUELA-QUEZADA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 53, 59)
Plaintiff Paul Nivard Beaton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 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 November 10, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that summary judgment be granted due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. No. 59.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff filed three relevant inmate grievances regarding health care. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff's first and third inmate appeals were rejected at first level screening and were not pursued further to exhaust plaintiff's administrative remedies. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff's The second appeal was denied at the headquarters' level and exhausted plaintiff's remedies as to that grievance. However, in his second inmate grievance plaintiff did not identify the individual named as a defendant in this action as one of the nurses allegedly responsible for the harm being complained of in that grievance. (Id.) Upon this record, the magistrate judge determined that defendant has met her burden to show that plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him prior to filing suit in this case, that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding exhaustion, and that summary judgment in defendant's favor would be appropriate. (Id. at 9.)
The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days from the date of service. (Id. at 9.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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 proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations filed on November 10, 2021 (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 53) is granted due to plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.