MONTOYA v. RAMAN, 1:10-cv-01686-AWI-SKO PC. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120724720
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST, AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY DAYS Docs. 17 and 22 ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Sigfredo Montoya, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on September 16, 2010. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST, AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY DAYS Docs. 17 and 22 ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Sigfredo Montoya, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on September 16, 2010. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST, AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY DAYS Docs. 17 and 22
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Sigfredo Montoya, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 16, 2010. 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 June 20, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust be denied. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). The fifteen-day objection period has expired and no objections were filed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 20, 2012, in full;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed on February 13, 2012, is DENIED; and
3. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
