Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05282/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05282-6/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

JAMES DEBACCO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. CALDERON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05282-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 48)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AND

DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST (Doc. 43)

Plaintiff James DeBacco (“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 December 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein 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. On

January 3, 2007, plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-05282-OWW -SMS Document 50 Filed 02/08/07 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

“[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . .

unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock,

Nos. 05-7058, 05-7142, 2007 WL 135890, *8 (Jan. 22, 2007) (citing

Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 524 (2002)). The events giving

rise to the claims at issue in this action occurred on October 22,

2002, December 13, 2002, and February 6, 2003. Plaintiff did not

file an inmate appeal grieving these events. Plaintiff’s claims

are therefore unexhausted and plaintiff may not proceed with this

action. 

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 and Recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 7, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, construed as one

for dismissal pursuant to the unenumerated portion of

Rule 12(b) motion, filed August 7, 2006, is GRANTED; and,

3. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the

available administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05282-OWW -SMS Document 50 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 2