Quiroga v. Graves, 1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191121848
Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 76) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff, Monico J. Quiroga III, 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 August 20, 2019, the assigned magi
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 76) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff, Monico J. Quiroga III, 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 August 20, 2019, the assigned magis..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. No. 76)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Monico J. Quiroga III, 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 August 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion to amend be denied and defendant Fuentez's motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required be granted. (Doc. No. 76.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) 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)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations filed on August 20, 2019, (Doc. No. 76), are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Fuentez's motion for summary judgment, filed on June 18, 2019, (Doc. No. 62), is granted;
3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, filed on July 29, 2019, (Doc. No. 72), is denied because granting leave to amend would be futile;
4. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit;
5. All other pending motions are denied as moot; and
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
