(PC) Underwood v. Cox et al, No. 1:2016cv00597 - Document 57 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 54 Findings and Recommendations, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/11/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANDRE UNDERWOOD, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:16-cv-00597-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF. NOS 43 & 54) R. COX and C. STANLEY, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Andre Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) against defendants R. Cox and 19 C. Stanley for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement, 20 specifically the lack of outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 42, p. 2). The matter was referred to a 21 United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This action is 22 On January 19, 2018, defendant Cox filed a motion for summary judgment on the 23 grounds that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his available administrative remedies. (ECF 24 No. 43). 25 recommendations, recommending that Defendant Cox’s motion for summary judgment be 26 denied. (ECF No. 54).1 On March 8, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 27 28 1 An evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion is currently set for July 17, 2018. (ECF No. 53). 1 1 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 2 recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed, and no objections have been 3 filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 6 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 7 analysis. 8 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 8, 10 2018, are ADOPTED in full; 11 2. Defendant Cox’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 12 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 11, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2