Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407-2/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

STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE, IV, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. ADAMS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05407-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 45)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS IN ITS ENTIRETY

(Doc. 37)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

FILE RESPONSE TO AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Steven Joseph Noble, IV (“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 August 19, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which 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. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 46 Filed 09/21/05 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

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. The court

also notes that the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning is in

conformance with a recently issued opinion by the Ninth Circuit. 

The Ninth Circuit has found that “a prisoner need not press on to

exhaust further levels of review once he has either received all

available remedies at an intermediate level of review or been

reliably informed by an administrator that no remedies are

available.” Brown v. Valoff, --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 2129069 (9th

Cir. Sep 06, 2005).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 19,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed February 21, 2004, 

is DENIED in its entirety; and,

3. Defendants SHALL respond to Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint filed on May 12, 2003, against Defendants Adams and

Cuevas for deprivation of outdoor exercise and denial of access

to the courts, and against Defendants Adams, Espinoza and

Pugliese for interference with Plaintiff’s right to receive mail

within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 46 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2