(PC) Catanzarite v. Pierce et al, No. 1:2012cv01502 - Document 80 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 78 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART 63 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Exhaustion of the Administrative Remedies; and ORDER DIRECTING Defendants Pierce, Holland, Walker and Marshall to File a Further Response Within Thirty (30) Days signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/11/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN CATANZARITE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. D. PIERCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-01502-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO EXHAUSTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS PIERCE, HOLLAND, WALKER, AND MARSHALL TO FILE A FURTHER RESPONSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [ECF Nos. 63, 78] Plaintiff John Catanzarite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On June 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny in part 21 and grant in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment relating to exhaustion of the 22 administrative remedies. (ECF Nos. 63, 78.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the 23 parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. No objections were 24 filed.1 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 On July 15, 2015, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 79.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 3 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 16, 2015, is adopted in full; 6 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 7 3. Plaintiff exhausted the following two claims for relief: Plaintiff’s due process claim relating to the November 24, 2010, hearing and 8 a). 9 failure to obtain DRB review as to Defendants Pierce and Holland; Plaintiff’s due process claim relating to the February 1, 2012, classification 10 b). 11 hearing as to Defendants Pierce, Walker, and Marshall; 12 4. Plaintiff did not exhaust any claims against Defendants Carrasco, Croxton, Drake, 13 Gassaway, Gonzalez, Liles, McLaughlin, Miner, Nipper, Reed, Rouston, Schulteis, 14 Snider, or Steadman and these defendants are entitled to summary judgment; and 15 16 17 18 5. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot and is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 11, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6. 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.