(PC) Giles v. Felker et al, No. 2:2011cv01825 - Document 139 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/1/2016 CONFIRMING 135 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to terminate 137 Motion for Reconsideration. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
(PC) Giles v. Felker et al Doc. 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DWAYNE GILES, 12 No. 2:11-cv-1825-WBS-EFB P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 FELKER, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 26, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party timely 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s March 10, 2016 request for a 24 lengthy extension of time to file objections, ECF No. 133, was denied, ECF No. 134, for failure to 25 show good cause for the extension. 26 On March 25, 2016, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations, granted 27 defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice 28 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 On March 28, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations and a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request for an extension of time. In an abundance of caution, the Court will vacate the March 25, 2016 order adopting the 4 findings and recommendations and reconsider them in light of plaintiff’s objections. See Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 7 court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including plaintiff’s objections to the findings 8 and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court 9 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that the order entered on March 25, 2016 11 (ECF No. 135) adopting in full the findings and recommendations, granting defendants’ motion 12 for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to 13 exhaust administrative remedies is CONFIRMED. The July 20, 2015 motion for summary 14 judgment filed by defendants Felker and Wong (ECF No. 101) and joined by defendants Roche 15 and Nachiondo is granted; plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to 16 exhaust administrative remedies; defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the merits (ECF 17 Nos. 100, 103) are denied without prejudice as moot; and the Clerk is directed to terminate ECF 18 No. 137 and to close the case. 19 Dated: April 1, 2016 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.