Robinson v. Cox

Full title: DEANDRE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. R. COX, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 21, 2019

No. 1:18-cv-01400-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2019)

Opinion

No. 1:18-cv-01400-DAD-SAB (PC)

10-21-2019

DEANDRE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. R. COX, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 24, 25, 26)

Plaintiff Deandre Robinson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 May 29, 2019, defendants R. Cox and A. Sotello filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 24.) On this same date, defendant S. Savoy filed a joinder to defendant Cox and Sotello's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to defendants' motion. On July 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss be denied because the court could not determine from the fact of the complaint and attached exhibits that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his failure to protect claim against defendants. (Doc. No. 26.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days after service. (Id. at 5.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now 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 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 19, 2019 (Doc. No. 26) are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. No. 24) is denied; and

3. Defendants shall file a further response to the operative complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21 , 2019

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE