-DLB (PC) Crudup v. Ward et al, No. 1:2010cv00934 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/2011; Motion to Dismiss 18 is GRANTED; Defendant Ward is DISMISSED From This Action. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
-DLB (PC) Crudup v. Ward et al Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 MICHAEL CRUDUP, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00934-AWI-DLB PC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 v. 11 (DOC. 26) J. WARD, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Michael Crudup (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defenadnts J. 18 Ward and M. Jericoff for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and violation of the Eighth 19 Amendment. On July 19, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims for failure to 20 exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 18. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 21 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On November 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which 23 was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings 24 and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Doc. 26. No parties filed a timely 25 Objection 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 November 16, 2011, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed July 19, 2011, is granted; 4 3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants Jericoff and Ward is dismissed 5 without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 6 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); and 7 8 9 10 4. Defendant Ward is dismissed from this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ciem0h December 23, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2