Opinion
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00656-AWI-DLB PC DOC. 42
09-20-2011
JAYMAR DODDS, Plaintiff, v. E. LASCANO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
DEFENDANTS LASCANO AND HAMLIN'S ANSWER DUE WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS
Plaintiff Jaymar Dodds ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2010 and April 6, 2011, Defendants filed motions to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Def. Williams's Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 30; Defs. Lascano and Hamlin's Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 36. 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 July 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party filed a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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 July 13, 2011, is adopted in full;
2. Defendant Williams's motion to dismiss, filed November 15, 2010, is GRANTED in full;
3. Defendant Williams is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
4. Defendants Lascano and Hamlin's motion to dismiss, filed April 6, 2011, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
5. Plaintiff's condition of confinement claim against Defendant Lascano is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
6. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation claim is DENIED; and
7. Defendants Lascano and Hamlin are to serve and file an answer within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE