Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06532/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06532-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

KEVIN L. MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STEVEN CAMBRA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:01-cv-06532-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 61)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 53)

Plaintiff, Kevin L. Murphy (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se in 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 72-302.

On April 21, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were 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)

days. On May 23, 2005, defendant filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, and on June 22,

2005, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s objections.

Case 1:01-cv-06532-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 07/08/05 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

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 April 21, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendant’s unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss,

filed November 19, 2004, is DENIED on the ground that exhaustion

occurred when prison officials failed to timely respond to

plaintiff’s inmate appeal; and

3. Defendant shall file an answer within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06532-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2