Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06110/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06110-0/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

BRIAN HACKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. CRAMER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-01-6110 OWW LJO P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND

DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

(Docs. 70 and 81) 

Plaintiff Brian Hackett (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis 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 December 22, 2004, 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 days. After receiving two extensions

of time, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations on April

22, 2005. 

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 December 22, 2004, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available

Case 1:01-cv-06110-OWW -LJO Document 94 Filed 05/06/05 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

administrative remedies prior to filing suit, filed July 7, 2004, is granted; and 

3. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the claims against defendants Nash, Motta, Lopez,

Herrera, Jasso, Klarich, Neubarth, Wagner, and Vieria are dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’sfailure to exhaust the available administrative remedies

prior to filing suit, thus concluding this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06110-OWW -LJO Document 94 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2