Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502-15/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff John Catanzarite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny in part 

and grant in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment relating to exhaustion of the 

administrative remedies. (ECF Nos. 63, 78.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the 

parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. No objections were 

filed.1

///

///

 

1

On July 15, 2015, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 79.) 

JOHN CATANZARITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. PIERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01502-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING IN PART 

AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO 

EXHAUSTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES, AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 

PIERCE, HOLLAND, WALKER, AND 

MARSHALL TO FILE A FURTHER RESPONSE 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

[ECF Nos. 63, 78]

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 80 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on June 16, 2015, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

3. Plaintiff exhausted the following two claims for relief: 

a). Plaintiff’s due process claim relating to the November 24, 2010, hearing and 

failure to obtain DRB review as to Defendants Pierce and Holland;

b). Plaintiff’s due process claim relating to the February 1, 2012, classification 

hearing as to Defendants Pierce, Walker, and Marshall;

4. Plaintiff did not exhaust any claims against Defendants Carrasco, Croxton, Drake, 

Gassaway, Gonzalez, Liles, McLaughlin, Miner, Nipper, Reed, Rouston, Schulteis, 

Snider, or Steadman and these defendants are entitled to summary judgment; and

5. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot and is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6.

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 80 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 2