Filed: Sep. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2013
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, 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 22, 2013, 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 wer
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, 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 22, 2013, 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..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, 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 22, 2013, 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. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 22, 2013, are adopted in full;
2. The August 7, 2012 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Stovall, Krause, Hurd, Brown, Silva, and Kelly (Dckt. No. 38) is granted and plaintiff's claims against those defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and
3. The August 7, 2012 motion for summary judgment filed by defendants (Dckt. No. 35) is denied.
