Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00496/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00496-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, 2:05-cv-0496-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. 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 General Order No. 262.

On June 13, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a prisoner cannot satisfy the

Case 2:05-cv-00496-GEB-DAD Document 15 Filed 07/14/06 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

2

PLRA exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective

administrative grievance or appeal. Woodford v. Ngo, U.S. , No. 05-416, 2006 WL

1698937, at *2 (U.S. June 22, 2006) (reversing Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

The Court explained that “[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines

and other procedural rules.” Id. at *5.

Plaintiff’s objections were accompanied by a separate motion for reconsideration

of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Rule

72(a) applies only to magistrate judges’ orders on non-dispositive matters. The arguments

presented in plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration were raised in his objections and have been

considered by the court in its de novo review of the case. The motion will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s April 7, 2005 request for injunction and order, plaintiff’s April 14,

2005 request for injunction and order, plaintiff’s April 20, 2005 request for court action, and

plaintiff’s May 31, 2005 request for preliminary injunction are denied;

3. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2006 motion for Rule 72(a) reconsideration is denied; and

4. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies prior to bringing this action.

Dated: July 13, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00496-GEB-DAD Document 15 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2