Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05563/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05563-1/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

ARMANDO HERNANDEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. CLAY,

Defendant. 

 /

1:03-cv-05563-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 40)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 35)

ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS

AS MOOT (Docs. 32, 33.) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Armando Hernandez, Jr. (“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 June 20, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were 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 (30)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-05563-AWI -SMS Document 41 Filed 08/22/05 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

1

Pending are a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Court to allow more access to the

law library. (Docs. 32, 33.) 

2

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 June 20, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed October 13, 2004,

based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust is GRANTED; 

3. All pending Motions are DENIED as moot;1

4. This action is therefore DISMISSED; and, 

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT in

accordance with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05563-AWI -SMS Document 41 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2