Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06510/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06510-2/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

REGINALDO J. DOMINGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06510-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 33)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

(Doc. 25)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 23)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Reginaldo J. Dominquez (“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 May 10, 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) 

///

Case 1:03-cv-06510-OWW -LJO Document 38 Filed 07/08/05 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

days. On June 21, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

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 May 10, 2005,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the declarations submitted

by defendants in support of their motion, filed January 24, 2005,

is DENIED;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed January 3, 2005,

is GRANTED; and,

4. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, on the

ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative

remedies in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06510-OWW -LJO Document 38 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2