Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02032/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02032-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT E. COFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAYDOLE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2032 TLN DB

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 302.

On March 14, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff 

did not timely file objections to the findings and recommendations and the Court adopted them in 

full. (ECF No. 33.) After judgment was entered for Defendants, Plaintiff requested an extension 

of time to file objections. The Court granted that motion and reopened the case to allow Plaintiff 

to file objections. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff has now filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 42.)

////

Case 2:13-cv-02032-TLN-DB Document 43 Filed 01/05/17 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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 March 14, 2016, (ECF No. 32), are adopted in 

full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) is granted;

3. This action is dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Dated: January 4, 2017

Case 2:13-cv-02032-TLN-DB Document 43 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2