Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-11/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

ANDREW LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05595-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S

ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO

ACT IN EXCESS OF TIME

(Doc. 65, 72)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 73)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 March 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On April 28, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 80 Filed 06/02/06 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Order

Granting Defendants Request to Act in Excess of Time is

OVERRULED;

2. The Findings and Recommendation, filed March 31, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims

against defendant Yale for failure to exhaust the

available administrative remedies is DENIED;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining claims and

defendants for failure to exhaust the available

administrative remedies is GRANTED; 

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action in its

entirety based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust some

of his claims is DENIED; and 

6. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim against

defendant Yale for deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs in withholding prescribed soft shoes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 80 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2