Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01945/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01945-10/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KYLE AVERY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. VIRGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-1945-KJM-DB P 

ORDER 

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 June 24, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

Case 2:11-cv-01945-KJM-DB Document 67 Filed 08/22/16 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

 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 24, 2016, are adopted in full; 

 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required (ECF No. 40) is granted on all of 

plaintiff’s claims, except his First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Dreager-Smith 

and Porter; 

 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation 

claim against defendants Dreager-Smith and Porter (ECF No. 40) is denied; and 

 4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of 

qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against 

defendants Dreager-Smith and Porter (ECF No. 40) is denied. 

DATED: August 22, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-01945-KJM-DB Document 67 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 2