Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00246/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00246-13/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

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

Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong is appearing 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 302. On June 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 

Recommendations which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that 

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No Objections 

were filed. 

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

///

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00246-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE RULE 12(B) MOTION TO 

EXHAUSTION ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, 

DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM, AND 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

MOTION TO AMEND

[ECF Nos. 28, 32, 43]

Case 1:13-cv-00246-AWI-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 9, 2014, is adopted in full; and

2. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion for failure to exhaust the administrative 

remedies is DENIED without prejudice;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief is DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part and the action shall 

proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint based on the cognizable claims set forth in 

Magistrate Judge’s June 9, 2014, Findings and Recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00246-AWI-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 2