Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00926/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00926-4/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

WILLIAM LANGSTON MEADOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLEASANT VALLEY

STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00926-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, AND

DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 14)

Plaintiff William Langston Meador (“plaintiff”) 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 72-302.

On February 27, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection on

March 23, 2007.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendationsto be supported bythe record and by proper analysis.

Although plaintiff objects, plaintiff’s complaint and objections establish that he did not

exhaust. (Doc. 1, pg. 2, 4, 5, 44, 45; Doc. 15.) Plaintiff did not file a timely inmate appeal and the

prison exercised its discretion not to consider the late appeal. (Id.) This constitutes a failure to

Case 1:06-cv-00926-LJO -GSA Document 16 Filed 03/27/07 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

exhaust, Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006), and plaintiff is precluded from proceeding

with this action, Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007) . 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 27, 2007, is adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply

with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his claims prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00926-LJO -GSA Document 16 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 2