Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05394/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05394-6/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

BRYAN RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LLAMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05394-LJO DLB PC

ORDER VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER

ADOPTING 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

[Doc 95]

Plaintiff , a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 72-302.

On September 28, 2007, the Court issued an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations

Recommending Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be Denied in Part and Granted in Part. This Order

was issued in error and is HEREBY VACATED.

On August 20, 2007, 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. The parties have not filed timely

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Case 1:04-cv-05394-LJO-DLB Document 96 Filed 10/01/07 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

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendationsto be supported bythe record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 20, 2007, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed September 18,

2006, be GRANTED; and

3. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), this action is dismissed, without prejudice, based

on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05394-LJO-DLB Document 96 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2