(PC) Gaines v. Sherman et al, No. 1:2015cv01533 - Document 52 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to grant 41 Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/26/2018. Case to remain open. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LESLIE JAMES GAINES, JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 BEASLEY, et al., 14 No. 1:15-cv-1533 LJO JLT P ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Defendants. (ECF Nos. 41, 47) 15 CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations to grant 21 the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not exhaust his 22 administrative remedies as to defendants Beasley, Rening, Lopez, and Ward. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 22, 2018 (ECF No. 47), are adopted 28 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in full; 2. The defendants’ September 4, 2018, motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED; 3. All claims against defendants Beasley, Rening, Lopez, and Ward are hereby DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remdies; and 4. This action shall proceed only as to defendant Curtiss on a First Amendment retaliation claim. Case to remain open 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ November 26, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 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.