Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00992-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER CORDELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. ROBERT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00992 TLN CKD P

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 Rule 302.

On April 27, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 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 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.

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00992-TLN-CKD Document 24 Filed 05/20/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2016, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is granted in part and denied in part as 

follows:

 Granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Robert and Auld stemming 

from allegations of events prior to November 2014;

 Denied as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Robert and Auld stemming 

from allegations of events between November 2014 and January 2015; and

 Denied without prejudice as to Defendants’ arguments that the second 

amended complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies;

3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, Defendants may renew their 

exhaustion argument in a motion for summary judgment; and

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings.

Dated: May 19, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00992-TLN-CKD Document 24 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2