Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. NICHOLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-800-AWI-GBC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 55)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

UNENUMERATED 12(b) AND DISMISSING

RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST

DEFENDANT HOLGUIN

(Doc. 38)

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 4, 2009. Doc. 1. The matter was referred

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On March 22, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the

Eighth Amendment claims being time-barred and filed an unenumerated 12(b) motion for failure to

exhaust the retaliation claim against Defendant Holguin. Doc. 38. On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed

an opposition. Doc. 45. On June 2, 2011, Defendants filed a reply wherein they withdrew their

motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds of statute of limitations. Doc. 46. On

November 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

recommended granting Defendants’ unenumerated 12(b) for failure to exhaust the retaliation claim

against Defendant Holguin and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file any objections. Doc. 55. The

thirty-day period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

1

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 63 Filed 02/23/12 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

II. Conclusion and Order

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

de novo review of this case. The Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendations are

supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on November 14, 2011, is adopted in full

(Doc. 55); and

2. Defendants’ unenumerated 12(b) motion is GRANTED and the retaliation claim

against Defendant Holguin is dismissed. Doc. 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 22, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 63 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 2