Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00838/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00838-12/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

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAROYA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00838-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 37)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR A CONTINUANCE, AND GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Docs. 31, 32, and 35)

Plaintiff Carlos Hendon (“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 October 16, 2007, 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 days. On November 9, 2007, plaintiff

filed an Objection. 

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.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/20/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 16, 2007, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions to continue defendants’ motion to dismiss pending discovery,

filed August 6, 2007, and August 30, 2007, are DENIED;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed July 25, 2007, is

GRANTED; and

4. This action is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 2