Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06561/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06561-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES MAULDIN,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6561 AWI WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & 

 RECOMMENDATIONS (#10)

S. HOLCOMB, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. 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 August 29, 2005, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff

was provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. Plaintiff has filed objections

to the findings and recommendations.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). The recommendation was based on Plaintiff’s concession that he had not fully

exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. In his objections, Plaintiff

contends that his appeal was partially granted at the second level of review, but concedes that he

Case 1:04-cv-06561-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 10/04/06 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

2

did not receive a decision at the final, Director’s, level of review prior to filing suit. Plaintiff

filed this action seeking monetary damages for Defendants’ deliberate indifference to his safety. 

The lawsuit stems from a fall from an upper bunk. Plaintiff contends that his medical condition

necessitated his housing on a lower bunk. The grievance was partially granted to direct that

Plaintiff be assigned a lower bunk. Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages for deliberate

indifference was not addressed. The central claim in this action is Defendants’ deliberate

indifference. There is no evidence that claim has been exhausted.

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

analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August

29, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state

remedies prior to filing suit. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06561-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2