Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05668/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05668-15/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

MANUEL JUAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05668-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT RANGEL’S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Docs. 76 and 83)

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Manuel Juarez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed March 7, 2005, against defendants Verdin, Gentry, Haws,

Fisher, Schmidt, and Travers for violation of plaintiff’s right to due process with respect to the

validation of plaintiff as a gang associate and the assessment of a SHU term, and against defendant

Rangel for endangering plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 June 13, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

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

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On July 12, 2007, plaintiff filed

an Objection. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 85 Filed 08/20/07 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

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 andRecommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 13, 2007, is adopted in full;

2. Defendant Rangel’s unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed February 26, 2007, is

GRANTED and the claim against him is dismissed, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust; and 

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 85 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2