Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CARLOS DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R.D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05488-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 37)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS (Doc. 31)

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

ALLOWING FOR FURTHER DISPOSITIVE

MOTIONS

Plaintiff John Carlos Duarte (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner in

federal custody proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil

rights action apparently pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On November 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 38 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

and Local Rule 73-305, 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 November 16,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies, filed

August 1, 2005, is DENIED, without prejudice;

3. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed

August 1, 2005, is DENIED, with prejudice; and,

4. The scheduling order is modified to allow the parties

forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order within

which to file further dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 38 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 2