(PC) White v. Patel et al, No. 1:2011cv00047 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 34 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING Defendant Chen and Patel's 26 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER REFERRING Case Back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/18/2014. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME WHITE, 12 1:11-cv-00047-AWI-GSA-PC Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 34.) PATEL, et al., 15 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS CHEN AND PATEL’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 26.) Defendants. 16 ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 17 18 19 Jerome White (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 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 December 13, 2013, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 23 that Defendants Chen and Patel’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. 34.) On 24 January 13, 2013, Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 35.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 27 including Defendants’ objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and proper analysis. The primary issue before the Court is whether a 1 1 claim is deemed exhausted if prison officials consider a late grievance. Based on the reasoning 2 explained in the Magistrate Judge’s cited cases, the Court finds exhaustion completed in this 3 action. 4 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. 6 7 December 13, 2013, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 2. 8 9 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on Defendants Chen and Patel’s motion to dismiss, filed on August 22, 2013, is DENIED; and 3. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2014 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.