Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00024-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RAUL ERNEST ALONSO-PRIET0,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

B. PIERCE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00024-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(ECF Nos. 32, 53)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

Plaintiff Raul Ernest Alonso-Prieto is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of California.

On January 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

that Defendant Pierce’s Motion to Dismiss filed June 14, 2013 (ECF No. 32) should be 

DENIED. (ECF No. 53.) Any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was due by 

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 56 Filed 03/07/14 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

February 10, 2014. (Id.) The February 10, 2014 deadline passed without any party filing 

objections or seeking extension of time to do so. 

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.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on January 22, 

2014 (ECF No. 53) in full,

2. Defendant Pierce’s Motion to Dismiss filed June 14, 2013 (ECF No. 32) is 

DENIED, and

3. The case shall remain open. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 56 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 2