Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00781/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00781-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-0781–DJC–DB–P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

mental health needs. 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 December 22, 2022, 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 days. (ECF No. 31.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings 

and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 

recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s 

responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant 

Case 2:21-cv-00781-DC-SCR Document 34 Filed 05/02/23 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

to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully 

effective.

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. The findings and recommendations filed December 22, 2022, are adopted 

in full; and

2. The motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary 

hearing to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2023 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00781-DC-SCR Document 34 Filed 05/02/23 Page 2 of 2