Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580-8/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

MORRIS LEE MESTER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. M. KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06580-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 62)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 38)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO

FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Morris Lee Mester (“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 December 22, 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 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 64 Filed 02/15/06 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 January 9, 2006, defendants 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 December 22,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss,

filed August 26, 2005, is DENIED on the ground that

exhaustion occurred on April 19, 2004, when plaintiff’s

appeal was denied at the Director’s Level of review;

and

3. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s

complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 64 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2