(PC) Rios v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2012cv01334 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER ADOPTING 81 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Defendants J. Briggs, DDS; Robert S. Pringle, DDS; and Dental Supervisor David Shampain and Plaintiff's claims regarding dental care and treatment are DISMISSED without prejudice; action referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further processing, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 09/18/17. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RENO FUENTES RIOS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 GIPSON, et al., 13 Case No. 1:12-cv-01334-LJO-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Docs. 65, 81) Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, Reno Fuentes Rios, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On August 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations to grant 19 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s dental claim, which was served on the 20 parties and notified the parties that objections were to be filed within twenty-one days. (Doc. 81.) 21 Plaintiff filed objections in which he reasserts arguments and contentions from his opposition 22 which were considered and addressed in the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 82.) 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 25 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 27 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 18, 2017 (Doc. 81), are adopted in full; 1 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the 1 2 available administrative remedies on his dental claims under the Eighth 3 Amendment prior to filing suit in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), filed on 4 November 1, 2016 (Doc. 65), is GRANTED; 5 3. Defendants J. Briggs, DDS; Robert S. Pringle, DDS; and Dental Supervisor David 6 Shampain and Plaintiff’s claims regarding dental care and treatment are 7 DISMISSED without prejudice; and 8 4. the action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further processing. 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ September 18, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2