Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01342-4/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

MARIO HATRI WOOTEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01342-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 17)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE

TO EXHAUST (Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Mario Hatri Wooten (“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 May 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. To date,

Case 1:05-cv-01342-OWW-LJO Document 20 Filed 07/31/06 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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on June 28, 2006, as undeliverable. 

1

A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Unable to Forward. However, plaintiff has not notified the

court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See Local

Rule 83-182(f). 

2

plaintiff has not filed an objection.1

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 May 19, 2006,

is ADOPTED in full; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative

remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01342-OWW-LJO Document 20 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2