Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05197/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05197-8/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

STEVEN VLASICH, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

REYNOSO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:01-cv-05197-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 82)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 74)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Steven Vlasich (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 Rule 72-302.

On December 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ motion to

dismiss be granted and this action dismissed for Plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and which contained

notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20) days. On

Case 1:01-cv-05197-AWI-LJO Document 84 Filed 02/15/07 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

January 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

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. In the

objections, Plaintiff complains that the Magistrate Judge did not

consider numerous appeals that he filed. However, “[p]roper

exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and

other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system

can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure

on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct.

2378 (2006). Thus, administrative appeals that were not filed

pursuant to prison rules cannot serve to exhaust Plaintiff’s

claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 20,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the case for Plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, filed October 24,

2006, is GRANTED; and,

3. The case is therefore DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05197-AWI-LJO Document 84 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 2