Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031-15/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

BRIDGETT BRADFORD, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et

al, 

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

EXTEND TIME AS MOOT

(Document #48 and #50)

Plaintiff Bridgett Bradfor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding with a 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 March 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims as not being administratively

exhausted prior to filing suit be granted and the complaint proceed only on the Eigth Amendment

and retaliation claims against Defendant Suryadvara. The Findings and Recommendations were

served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed by March 26, 2007. No objections have been filed.

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

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/28/07 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

analysis.

In reviewing the docket, it appears that a motion filed by Plaintiff on April 4, 2006 has

never been formally ruled on by the court. This motion appears to request more time to do

various actions in this case. Given that the motion is unclear and appears to address a need for

more time that was required almost one year ago, the court will deny this motion as moot at this

time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 12, 2007, are ADOPTED IN

FULL

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document #48) is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff’s April 4, 2006 motion (Document #50) is DENIED as moot;

4. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hodgdon, Schoonard and Paine are

DISMISSED without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust;

5. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims

against Defendant Suryadevara; and

6. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2