Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01414/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01414-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FATEEM L. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01414-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

(Docs. 32 & 39)

Plaintiff Fateem L. Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding 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 April 21, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein, on

the motion to dismiss filed byDefendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, 1

and Zanchi, 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. Neither side

filed any objection(s). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

The motion sought dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies on Plaintiff's claims against

1

Defendants Pantoja, Payan, Rubin, Selbach, Wood, and Yoder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and all moving

Defendants asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01414-LJO -SKO Document 40 Filed 05/27/10 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

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 21, 2010 (Doc. 39), is adopted in

full; and

2. The motion to dismiss filed, on November 23, 2009 (Doc. 32), by Defendants

Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01414-LJO -SKO Document 40 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2