Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-45/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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFEERING 

THE MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Docs. 150, 191). 

Defendants Camacho, Ibarra, Gill, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd move for summary 

judgment arguing that Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces failed to exhaust his available administrative 

remedies. (Doc. 150.) Defendants requested an evidentiary hearing if the Court determined there 

was a genuine dispute of material fact. (Id. at 15.) The assigned magistrate judge entered Findings

and Recommendations, recommending that the motion for summary judgment be denied and that 

“[a]n evidentiary hearing be set to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative 

remedies by timely filing a grievance regarding his medical deliberate indifference claim that was 

improperly processed by prison officials.” (Id. at 14.) 

The Court provided the parties an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations. Defendants filed objections. (Doc. 201.) Plaintiff filed untimely objections, 

(Doc. 205), and an untimely response to Defendants’ objection. (Doc. 209.) 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 232 Filed 03/18/24 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

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court performed a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The procedures 

set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 remain available to Plaintiff should discovery 

reveal additional, relevant facts. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 27, 2022 (Doc. 49), are ADOPTED 

IN FULL.

2. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing 

to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2024 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 232 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 2