Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01322/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01322-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAULTON J. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01322-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 41, 53, 61)

Plaintiff Shaulton J. Mitchell (“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 302.

On February 9, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. After receiving an extension

of time, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on April 14, 2010.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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. Plaintiff’s contention that

he attempted to submit several appeals which prison officials improperly rejected is unsupported by

the evidence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 9, 2010, is adopted in full;

1

Case 1:07-cv-01322-AWI-DLB Document 62 Filed 05/05/10 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. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, filed August 14, 2009, is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims of failure to

protect, excessive force, retaliatorycell transfer, and retaliatory food deprivation and 

those claims are dismissed without prejudice;

3. Defendants Martinez, Aguirre, and Masiel are dismissed from this action;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims of food

deprivation; and

5. This action proceeds against Defendants Hernandez, Bustos, Compelbel, Gutierrez,

and Sloss for food deprivation in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01322-AWI-DLB Document 62 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2