Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01280-2/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

REGINALD COLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. ROMAN-MARIN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01280-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BASED ON

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST

PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 7)

Plaintiff Reginald Colbert (“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 September 11, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations on October 3, 2007.

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 andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

“[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought

in court.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007) (citing , Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 524

(2002). Plaintiff is waiting for a Director’s Level response to his inmate appeal. (Comp., § II(C).)

A Director’s Level response is due in sixty working days. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.6 (b)(4)

Case 1:07-cv-01280-LJO-LJO Document 10 Filed 10/04/07 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

 This complaint in this action alleges incidents of alleged excessive force, racial discrimination, placement 1

in administrative segregation, and retaliation. (Comp., Court Record pgs. 4 & 8-10.) There are no allegations of

medical care needs and no Americans with Disabilities Act claims, despite plaintiff’s reliance of those issues in

support of his Objection that the Court reconsider the dismissal recommendation in light of plaintiff’s health. 

2

(West 2007). Time limits for completion of appeals commence upon receipt of the appeal by the

appeals coordinator, tit. 15 § 3084.6 (a), and weekends and state holidays do not count as working

days, tit. 15 § 4003(j)(2). Plaintiff’s Objection sets forth no grounds supporting non-adoption of the

Findings and Recommendations. The exhaustion requirement is mandatory and cannot be excused

by the Court due to plaintiff’s health problems. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 11, 2007, is adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply

with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his claims prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01280-LJO-LJO Document 10 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 2