(PC) Cazares v. Yates, No. 1:2008cv00232 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 24 Tarek's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/19/2013. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON CAZARES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. NASSIF TAREK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:08-cv-00232-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING DEFENDANT TAREK’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [ECF No. 29] Plaintiff Simon Cazares is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 21 Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that 22 Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No Objections 23 were filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 11, 2013, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant Tarek’s motion to dismiss is DENIED; and 4 3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: November 19, 2013 8 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.
