Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00992-13/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

RICHARD ALAN LAWSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD YOUNGBLOOD, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(ECF Nos. 64, 71)

Plaintiff Richard Alan Lawson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On January 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed May 29, 2013 should be denied. On February 6, 

2014, Defendants filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 76 Filed 02/20/14 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

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Defendants object that statements made by Plaintiff immediately following the 

incident were neither intended as nor sufficient as a verbal grievance; and that the KCSD 

grievance process remained available to Plaintiff after his transfer to Lerdo because he

returned to the Downtown Jail (where the alleged incident occurred) on at least two 

subsequent occasions. However, these Objections are not supported by the KCSD 

grievance procedure for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge and argue matters not 

before the Magistrate Judge. Defendants Objections do not raise an issue of law or fact 

under the Findings and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on January 23, 

2014 (ECF No. 71), in full, and

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed May 29, 2013 (ECF No. 64) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 76 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 2