Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00398-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK ROMANDETTA,

Plaintiff, No. 2:00-cv-00398 DFL CMK (PC)

vs.

VINCE WALL, et al.,

Defendants. 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 General Order No. 262.

On April 7, 2005, 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 fifteen days. On May 10, 2005,

plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days in which to file objections. 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 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

/////

Case 2:00-cv-00398-DFL -CMK Document 112 Filed 09/13/05 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

2

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. In particular, plaintiff’s assertion that he could not avail himself of CDC

procedures because all of the retaliatory actions were taken by CDF officials is without merit. 

Plaintiff has sued both CDC and CDF officials and was under the control of the CDC at all times. 

Plaintiff points to no authority for the proposition that CDC administrative grievance procedures

were closed to him because of the involvement of CDF officers.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 7, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ October 29, 2004 motion to dismiss is granted and;

3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply

with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement.

DATED: 9/9/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/roma0398.805

Case 2:00-cv-00398-DFL -CMK Document 112 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2