Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636-8/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

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SERGEANT C. TYNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06636-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 62)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO EXHAUST (Doc. 55)

Plaintiff Charles Chatman (“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, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be

denied. The Findings and Recommendations were 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. To date, the parties have not filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 66 Filed 07/07/06 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

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, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim against

defendants Winett, Vazquez, Johnson, and Lundy, stemming from

the allegation that defendants forced plaintiff to stand outside

in freezing weather in his underwear to punish him, for failure

to exhaust the available administrative remedies as mandated by

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), filed December 19, 2005, is DENIED, without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 66 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2