Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-13/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

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

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843 JLT SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING IN PART 

AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

EXHAUSTION MOTON FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Docs. 32, 41)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 4, 2024, the magistrate judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations recommending that Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment be 

granted as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim and denied as to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. 

(Doc. 41.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 17, 2024.1 (Doc. 48.) 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes 

the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the 

Court ORDERS:

1 Plaintiff correctly indicates that the Findings and Recommendations contained a typographical error at page 1, line 

1 referring to Plaintiff as Isaiah J. Petillo. (Doc. 41.) Because the remainder of the Findings and Recommendations 

clearly refers to the correct casefile, the Court does not believe the typographical error is material and hereby corrects 

it to reflect that both the Findings and Recommendations and this order concern the above-captioned action brought 

by Damen D. Rabb.

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 55 Filed 05/03/24 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

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 4, 2024 (Doc. 41) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to 

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.

3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is dismissed from the action, without prejudice, for 

failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.

4. Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to 

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 55 Filed 05/03/24 Page 2 of 2