(PC) Alonso-Prieto v. Pierce, et al., No. 1:2011cv00024 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 32 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/21/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 RAUL ERNEST ALONSO-PRIET0, Case No. 1:11-cv-00024-AWI-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (ECF Nos. 32, 53) 13 14 15 v. 16 B. PIERCE, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 19 20 Plaintiff Raul Ernest Alonso-Prieto is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se 21 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 22 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 23 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 25 of California. 26 On January 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 27 that Defendant Pierce’s Motion to Dismiss filed June 14, 2013 (ECF No. 32) should be 28 DENIED. (ECF No. 53.) Any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was due by 1 1 February 10, 2014. (Id.) The February 10, 2014 deadline passed without any party filing 2 objections or seeking extension of time to do so. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 4 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 5 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 6 analysis. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 2014 (ECF No. 53) in full, 9 10 2. Defendant Pierce’s Motion to Dismiss filed June 14, 2013 (ECF No. 32) is DENIED, and 11 12 The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on January 22, 3. The case shall remain open. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 21, 2014 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.