Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02391/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02391-5/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

WILLIAM YOUNG SUTHERLAND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2391 WBS DAD P

vs.

S. HERRMANN, 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 Rule 302.

On June 7, 2010, 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 twenty-one days. Defendants have not

filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. On June 10, 2010, however, plaintiff

filed a motion to augment his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. While that could be

construed as an objection in that it was filed three days after the filing of the findings and

recommendations, the court notes that plaintiff dated it June 6, 2010, a day before the findings

and recommendations were filed. Further, the court can discern no valid reason to permit

Case 2:09-cv-02391-WBS-DAD Document 32 Filed 08/06/10 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

plaintiff to augment the record when he prevailed on the motion. Therefore, plaintiff’s request to

augment his opposition to defendants’ motion will not be construed as an objection to the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and will be denied.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to augment his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss

(Doc. No. 31) is denied;

2 The findings and recommendations filed June 7, 2010, are adopted in full; and

3. Defendants’ February 10, 2010 motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. No. 17) is denied.

DATED: August 5, 2010

/suth2391.801

Case 2:09-cv-02391-WBS-DAD Document 32 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 2