Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464-2/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

ABRAHAM ROMERO, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

H. COFFEE, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06464-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 32)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 26)

Plaintiff Abraham Romero (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 August 30, 2005, 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 (30)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 33 Filed 10/12/05 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 26,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed March

25, 2005, is DENIED on the ground that exhaustion occurred in

August of 2003, when plaintiff’s appeal was screened out; and

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order, defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s

amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 33 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2