Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00035/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00035-5/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

RICHARD M. GILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0035 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, 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 General Order No. 262.

On February 9, 2006, 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. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, 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. The court concurs with the magistrate judge that the administrative grievance

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 26 Filed 03/17/06 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

2

did not fairly give notice that he was complaining of particular actions by defendant Zhu. In

addition, plaintiff failed to seek third level review, thereby failing to exhaust administrative

remedies. Even if the grievance had already been rejected as untimely, plaintiff must still attempt

to exhaust administrative remedies because the prison may decide to waive untimeliness and

address the grievance on its merits. See Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 629 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 9, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Zhu’s August 26, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Zhu is dismissed for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit;

4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to filing in state

court; and

5. This case is closed.

DATED: 3/17/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 26 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2