(PC) Dodds v. Lascano et al, No. 1:2009cv00656 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/20/2011 adopting 42 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 30 Motion to Dismiss by B. Williams; granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Dismiss by J. Hamlin and E. Lascano and requiring them to serve and file an answer. (Filing Deadline: 10/11/2011). (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Dodds v. Lascano et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAYMAR DODDS, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00656-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL v. (DOC. 42) 12 13 E. LASCANO, et al., DEFENDANTS LASCANO AND HAMLIN’S ANSWER DUE WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Jaymar Dodds (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2010 and April 6, 2011, 18 Defendants filed motions to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Def. Williams’s Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 30; Defs. Lascano and 20 Hamlin’s Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 36. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 23 served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and 24 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party filed a timely Objection 25 to the Findings and Recommendations. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 28 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 13, 2011, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant Williams’s motion to dismiss, filed November 15, 2010, is GRANTED 4 in full; 5 3. 6 Defendant Williams is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); 7 4. 8 Defendants Lascano and Hamlin’s motion to dismiss, filed April 6, 2011, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 9 5. Plaintiff’s condition of confinement claim against Defendant Lascano is dismissed 10 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant 11 to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); 12 6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DENIED; and 13 7. Defendants Lascano and Hamlin are to serve and file an answer within twenty (20) 14 15 16 17 days from the date of service of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ciem0h September 20, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.