Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00639/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00639-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

 The March 9, 2006, finding and recommendation indicated that claim six is a re-articulation 1

of Plaintiff’s fourth claim. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY AUSTIN POOL,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0639 LJO WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

ROBERT HARO,, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action. 

By order filed October 6, 2006, the District Court adopted the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, dismissing claims 1,2,3,5 and 7 for failure to state a

claim. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the remaining counts for failure to 1

exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. The District Court granted Plaintiff

leave to file an amended complaint to eliminate the unexhausted claims. As noted in the March

6, 2006, recommendation of dismissal, claim six is a re-articulation of the fourth claim, which

was dismissed for failure to exhaust. There are no remaining unexhausted claims. This action

should therefore be dismissed. 

Case 1:05-cv-00639-LJO -WMW Document 36 Filed 03/08/07 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

 Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

plaintiff's failure to state a claim as to claims 1,2,3,5 and 7, for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his

available administrative remedies as to claims 4 and 6.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00639-LJO -WMW Document 36 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2