Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00487-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Gonzales
Defendant
Timothy Howard
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00487 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST

(Document 46)

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 30, 2012. He filed a First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) as of right on June 27, 2014. The action is proceeding against Defendant Gonzales for 

violations of the First and Eighth Amendments.

Defendant filed her answer on July 9, 2014.

On August 21, 2014, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.1 Plaintiff opposed the motion on 

September 12, 2014, and Defendant filed her reply on September 18, 2014. On October 3, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a “Request for Judicial Notice.”

The motion is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

A. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California. 

The events at issue occurred while he was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility in Corcoran, California.

 

1 Concurrent with her motion, Defendant provided Plaintiff with the requirements for opposing a summary judgment 

motion. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 10
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

Plaintiff alleges that he submitted numerous appeals against Defendant Gonzales for 

unprofessional misconduct, retaliation and destruction of property by personally handing the appeals 

to her for informal level response. Defendant Gonzales failed to submit and/or destroyed the 

appeals.

On or about December 22, 2009, Plaintiff verbally informed Defendant Gonzales that he 

wasn’t feeling well. At some point while in her presence, he collapsed and had a seizure. He alleges 

that he was denied medical care.

Later that day, Plaintiff confronted Defendant Gonzales and asked why he didn’t receive 

medical attention. She stated, “Fuck you, and I wished you would’ve died fucker for stabbing one of 

my partners in Corcoran.” ECF No. 39, at 3. 

When Plaintiff asked an unknown nurse about the matter, Plaintiff was informed that 

“custody said no treatment.” Several prisoners started yelling, “we screamed man down and they 

did nothing.” ECF No. 39, at 3. 

Plaintiff submitted another 602 on December 22, 2009, to the Sergeant in Administrative 

Segregation. On December 29, 2009, Plaintiff was interviewed by Sergeant Zinani, Correctional 

Officer Langner and Defendant Gonzales. Plaintiff explained that he had submitted numerous 

appeals to Defendant Gonzales, but she failed to return the appeal as required. He also explained 

that Defendant Gonzales failed to notify medical when he had a seizure, and that she has started to 

harass him. Plaintiff was informed that staff matters were confidential and beyond the scope of the 

appeals process, but that appropriate action would be taken. They requested that Plaintiff withdraw 

the appeal, but he refused to do so.

Also on December 29, 2009, several correctional officers arrived at Plaintiff’s cell, 

screaming and ordering him to submit to handcuffs. Plaintiff was taken to the Administrative 

Segregation Unit as punishment for filing appeals. To justify the punishment, Plaintiff was told that 

he threatened to kill Defendant Gonzales during the appeal interview. Plaintiff spent 495 days in a 

management cell.

Plaintiff submitted an appeal on this issue on December 29, 2009.

On January 8, 2010, Plaintiff was issued a CDCR 115 Rules Violation Report for threatening 

a peace officer at the December 29, 2009, hearing. The report was written by Defendant Gonzales. 

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 10
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

3

Plaintiff submitted complaints to Internal Affairs, the Appeals Coordinator, Defendant Gonzales and 

the Warden on January 8, 2010.

On February 6, 2010, Plaintiff had a hearing on the Rules Violation and was found not guilty. 

Plaintiff had submitted evidence of his prior appeals against Defendant Gonzales. Moreover, the 

witnesses who were present during the interview did not hear any of what Defendant Gonzales wrote 

in the report. The Rules Violation Report was dismissed in the interest of justice on February 6, 

2010.

Plaintiff contends that he never received a response to the appeals dated December 22, 2009, 

December 29, 2009, and January 8, 2010. Therefore, he repeatedly submitted the appeals to the 

Appeal Coordinator and the Director of Appeals. The Director of Appeals directed Plaintiff to return 

the appeals to the institutional level, and he has done so “without processing.” ECF No. 39, at 5. 

The Office of Internal Affairs forwarded a complaint to the Appeals Office, but it was screened out. 

He has repeatedly resubmitted the appeals but has not received a response. Plaintiff contends that 

the appeals are exhausted because no remedies are available. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gonzales (1) violated his First Amendment right to file 

grievances; (2) violated his Eighth Amendment right to medical care on December 22, 2009; and (3) 

retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment by issuing a false Rules Violation Report.

B. LEGAL STANDARD

The failure to exhaust is subject to a motion for summary judgment in which the court may 

look beyond the pleadings. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). If the Court 

concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. 

Jones, 549 U.S. at 223-24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2005).

“If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to 

exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. 

However, “[i]f material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied, and [following such 

denial] the district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts.” Id. The Albino court 

specified that the court should act as the finder of fact in connection with an exhaustion challenge 

“in a preliminary proceeding” and, “if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claim.” Id. 

at 1168, 1170. 

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 10
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

4

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court may not make credibility 

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 

(9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact 

precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 

657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 

1566 (2012). The Court determines only whether there is a genuine issue for trial, and Plaintiff’s 

filings must be liberally construed because he is a pro se prisoner. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 

1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

C. APPEALS PROCESS

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with 

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner 

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 

(2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required 

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, 

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement 

applies to all suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992 

(2002).

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance 

system for prisoner complaints, and the process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Cal. 

Code Regs., tit. 15 §§ 3084.1, 3084.2(a). During the relevant time period, four levels of appeal were 

involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, 

also known as the “Director’s Level,” and appeals had to be submitted within fifteen working days 

of the event being appealed. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 4 of 10
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

5

D. ANALYSIS

1. Parties’ Arguments

Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff filed numerous appeals both before and after the 

alleged events of December 2009, but she contends that he never submitted an appeal claiming that 

she denied him medical care, destroyed his legal property,

2

filed a false report or retaliated against 

him. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff did not file any appeals, whether screened out or not,

within fifteen working days of either December 22, 2009, or December 29, 2009.

Plaintiff opposes the motion by arguing that a hearing was held on December 29, 2009, 

regarding his December 22, 2009, appeal, making all issues raised in that appeal (retaliation, 

destruction of legal property and denial of medical care) exhausted. He also argues that the repeated 

failure to respond to his appeals dated December 29, 2009, and January 8, 2010, rendered the 

exhaustion process unavailable to him. 

In reply, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff did not properly submit any appeals to the 

Appeals Coordinator. However, even taking Plaintiff’s evidence as submitted, Defendant contends 

that Plaintiff did not submit any appeals to the Appeals Coordinator until the middle of February 

2010, nearly two months after the events occurred.

Plaintiff’s claims in this action arise from Defendant Gonzales’ alleged (1) repeated refusal 

to file any of his appeals during an unknown time period prior to December 22, 2009; (2) refusal to 

summon medical care on December 22, 2009; and (3) falsely accusing him of threatening her on 

December 29, 2009. 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff repeatedly argues that Defendant has failed to dispute certain 

facts in his FAC because she did not submit a declaration to contradict his claims that he gave her 

numerous appeals. However, Plaintiff misunderstands the burdens on summary judgment. The 

Ninth Circuit described the parties’ burdens as they relate to exhaustion as follows:

[T]he defendant’s burden is to prove that there was an available administrative remedy, and 

that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy. (Citation omitted.) Once the 

defendant has carried that burden, the prisoner has the burden of production. That is, the 

burden shifts to the prisoner to come forward with evidence showing that there is something 

 

2 Destruction of legal property is not a claim in this action.

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 5 of 10
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

6

in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies 

effectively unavailable to him. (Citations omitted.) 

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. 

Therefore, in moving for summary judgment, Defendant does not have the burden of 

disputing the allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC relating to exhaustion. Rather, Defendant bears the 

burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff’s argument that 

Defendant has conceded facts in his FAC is therefore without merit.

Finally, Plaintiff’s substantive arguments on the merits of his claims are not relevant to the 

analysis of this motion. 

Turning to the issue of exhaustion, it is clear that most of the facts relating to Plaintiff’s 

attempts to exhaust are disputed. The Court will address each claim separately, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

2. Refusal to File Grievances

Plaintiff maintains that he submitted numerous appeals “surrounding unprofessional 

misconduct, retaliation and destruction of legal property” directly to Defendant Gonzales by 

“personally handing” them to her for a response at the informal level. Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 3 (ECF No. 50, 

at 1). He contends that her failure to respond made the grievance procedure unavailable, and renders 

all appeals given to her prior to December 22, 2009, exhausted. 

Plaintiff’s appeals given to Defendant Gonzales prior to the December 22, 2009, incident, 

however, have not been submitted to the Court as evidence. Plaintiff contends that these appeals 

exhausted his claim that Defendant Gonzales prevented him from filing grievances, but he has not 

submitted evidence of the appeals. 

While her alleged refusal to accept his appeals prior to December 22 may support his actual 

claim, there is no evidence that he submitted an appeal directed at Defendant Gonzales’ failure to 

accept his grievances. The December 22, 2009, appeal states that Plaintiff “has submitted various 

appeals, and requested (CSATF) supervisors to reprimand C. Gonzales for inciting violence, 

unprofessional conduct, disrespect, reprisal and destruction of prisoner’s property that includes legal 

materials, photos and other minute items. . .” Pl.’s Ex. D (ECF No. 49, at 41). The appeal then goes 

on to raise the alleged denial of medical care on December 22, 2009. The December 29, 2009, 

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 6 of 10
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

7

appeal also mentions the unprofessional conduct, etc., but then describes the alleged retaliatory 

accusations. Pl.’s Ex. I (ECF No. 49, at 78). Finally, the January 8, 2010, appeal deals solely with 

the allegedly false RVR. Pl.’s Ex. J (ECF No. 49, at 80). 

Accordingly, the undisputed facts show that Plaintiff has not exhausted his claim that 

Defendant Gonzalez refused to accept his grievances. 

3. Denial of Medical Care

Plaintiff states that he submitted an appeal on December 22, 2009, to the ASU/Ad-Seg 

Sergeant. Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. D (ECF No. 49, at 41).

3

 Plaintiff requested an interview in the appeal, 

and states that on December 29, 2009, the interview took place with Ad-Seg Sergeant Zinani, 

Correctional Officer Langner and Defendant. Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 10. He argues that this interview shows 

that the medical claim was exhausted. 

Taking these facts as undisputed, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust 

because he was required to submit his appeal through the institutional mail directly to the Appeals 

Coordinator. Corral Decl. ¶ 4 (ECF No. 46-4, at 2). Indeed, according to Plaintiff’s facts, he gave 

the appeal directly to the ASU/Ad-Seg Sergeant on December 22, 2009.

Beginning on January 19, 2010, Plaintiff wrote various letters to the Warden and Internal 

Affairs, but these letters did not properly exhaust his claim. On February 9, 2010, Plaintiff wrote a 

letter to the Appeals Coordinator explaining that his appeals had not been processed. Pl.’s Dec. ¶ 21 

(ECF No. 50, at 3). Plaintiff’s copy of the December 22, 2009, appeal shows that it was received by 

the Inmate Appeals Branch on February 16, 2010. Pl.’s Ex. D (ECF No. 49, at 41). 

 

3 Defendant states that according to Plaintiff’s Declaration, Plaintiff gave the appeal directly to Defendant, and that 

Defendant then destroyed it. Plaintiff’s declaration, however, does not specifically say that he gave the December 22, 

2009, appeal to Defendant. Rather, Plaintiff declares that he gave Defendant appeals “on various occasions,” none of 

which involved medical care. Pl.s’ Decl. ¶ 3 (ECF No. 50, at 3). Plaintiff later states that he submitted the appeals “on” 

Defendant Gonzales. Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 18 (ECF No. 50, at 3). The Court notes that in a January 19, 2010, letter to the 

Warden, attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s opposition, he states, “your officer refused to answer and return appeals, 

therefore copies of appeals have been made prior to submission on 12/22/09, 12/29/09 and 1/8/09, however, C/O 

Gonzales has refused to answer the informal level and return appeals.” Pl.’s Ex. K (ECF No. 49, at 82).

 Although there may be some confusion as to whether Plaintiff gave the December 22, 2009, appeal to Defendant, the 

issue is not relevant. According to Defendant, Plaintiff was not required to exhaust at the informal level where he 

accuses an officer of misconduct, and Plaintiff is not arguing that giving the appeal to Defendant sufficed to exhaust it. 

 The Court also notes that if Plaintiff contends that he gave the appeal to Defendant and she did not process it, his 

argument that a hearing was held on the appeal would be nonsensical. 

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 7 of 10
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

8

Under Plaintiff’s facts, then, he did not submit any appeals to the Appeals Coordinator until 

February 9, 2010. However, this was far beyond the fifteen working-day time period to submit an 

appeal for the December 22, 2009, event. 

Insofar as Plaintiff contends that the December 29, 2009, hearing exhausted the appeal, he is 

incorrect. The parties dispute whether the hearing was an appeal hearing. While Plaintiff contends 

that the hearing was related to his appeal, Defendant asserts that the hearing addressed the threats 

Plaintiff was making against Defendant. Regardless, and even if the meeting was related to his 

appeal, Plaintiff did not continue to exhaust his appeal to the final level in a timely manner.

Plaintiff’s appeals dated December 29, 2009, and January 8, 2010, were related to his claims 

of retaliation, and did not serve to exhaust his denial of medical care claim. Similarly, while 

Plaintiff continued to write letters to various entities through March 2012, they did not serve to 

timely and properly exhaust his claim.

Therefore, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he has failed to properly

exhaust his administrative remedies on the denial of medical care claim.

4. Retaliation

Plaintiff states that he filed an appeal on December 29, 2009, relating to the allegedly false 

Rules Violation Report stemming from the December 29, 2009, interview. Pl.’s Decl. ¶15; Ex. I 

(ECF No. 49, at 78).

4

 He does not state to whom it was submitted. Plaintiff also submitted a second 

appeal on the issue on January 8, 2009, “to the Appeals Office (Coordinator), C. Gonzales, Internal 

Affairs and Warden Ken Clark.” Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 17; Ex J (ECF No. 49, at 80). Plaintiff argues that he 

did not receive a response to these appeals, despite his diligence, and that the failure to respond 

rendered the appeals process unavailable.

In her reply, Defendant argues that in Plaintiff’s January 10, 2010, letter to the Warden, 

attached to his opposition as Exhibit K, Plaintiff both clarifies and contradicts his testimony. The 

letter states, “your officer refused to answer and return appeals, therefore copies of appeals have 

been made prior to submission on 12/22/09, 12/29/09 and 1/8/09, however, C/O Gonzales has 

refused to answer the informal level and return appeals.” Pl.’s Ex. K (ECF No. 49, at 82).

 

4

Plaintiff was given a copy of the RVR on January 8, 2010. However, Plaintiff knew of the charge on December 29, 

2009, when he submitted his first appeal on the issue.

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 8 of 10
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

9

As to the December 29, 2009, appeal, Defendant argues that the letter clarifies that Plaintiff 

gave the appeal only to Defendant. Defendant argues that this is consistent with Plaintiff’s copy of 

the appeal, which shows that it wasn’t received by the Inmate Appeals Branch until February 16, 

2010. Pl.’s Ex. I (ECF No. 49, at 78). Under this scenario, Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiff could 

not have exhausted by submitting the document directly to the officer involved in claims of 

misconduct;5and (2) his February 16, 2010, submission to the Appeals Branch was late. 

The Court agrees that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, shows that 

the December 29, 2009, appeal did not exhaust his retaliation claim. Plaintiff does not specifically 

state to whom he gave the appeal in either his opposition or his declaration, and the only evidence 

before the Court is his letter to the Warden, which states that he that he gave it to Defendant 

Gonzales. His evidence also indicates that the appeal did not reach the Inmate Appeal Branch until 

February 16, 2010. 

Turning to the January 8, 2010, appeal, Defendant contends that the letter to the Warden 

directly contradicts Plaintiff’s statement in his declaration that he gave the appeal to Defendant, as 

well as the Appeals Office, Internal Affairs and the Warden. Defendant also suggests that Plaintiff’s 

contention that he submitted the January 8, 2010, appeal to the Appeals Office is not believable 

because (1) there is no reason that he would submit it to the Appeals Office at the same time he 

submitted it to Defendant for informal review; and (2) unlike Plaintiff’s other two appeals, the 

January 8, 2010, appeal is not stamped as received by the Inmate Appeals Branch. 

Insofar as Defendant characterizes Plaintiff’s claim as “suspicious,” such a determination 

goes beyond that permitted on summary judgment. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 

978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court is also hesitant to conclude that Plaintiff’s statements are 

directly contradictory. While he may say that he gave it to Defendant in his letter to the Warden, he 

does not say that he did not give it to anyone else. 

The path of Plaintiff’s January 8, 2010, appeal is therefore disputed. While Defendant 

contends that Plaintiff did not send an appeal to the Appeals Office until the middle of February 

2010, Plaintiff contends that he submitted the January 8, 2010, letter directly to the Appeals Office. 

 

5 Defendant cites Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5(a)(3)(G)(2009), which waives the informal level review requirement 

for accusations of misconduct by peace officers.

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 9 of 10
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

10

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is a genuine 

dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff’s January 8, 2010, appeal exhausted his retaliation 

claim. The Court cannot make findings on Plaintiff’s remaining attempts to get a response given this 

disputed fact. 

E. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed on August 21, 2014, be GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 

2. Defendant’s motion be GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant (1) refused 

to file his grievances; and (2) denied medical care on December 22, 2009, and these 

claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDCE; and

3. Defendant’s motion be DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation. The Court will 

determine if an evidentiary hearing, or the submission of additional evidence, is 

necessary upon District Court review of these Findings and Recommendations.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 57 Filed 12/10/14 Page 10 of 10