(PC) Rogers v. Warden, No. 1:2018cv00846 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 42 Findings and Recommendations to Grant 36 Defendant Bettencourt's Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and to Deny 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2021. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 PHILIP JAMES ROGERS, 12 No. 1:18-cv-0846 NONE JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANT BETTENCOURT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. RODRIGUEZ, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 (Doc. Nos. 36, 39, 42) 18 19 CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 22 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On February 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 25 recommending that defendant Bettencourt’s motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s 26 failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as is required be granted. (Doc. 27 No. 42.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to 28 them that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 1 1 days. (Id. at 9.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 2 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 3 by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 4 that: 5 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2021 (Doc. No. 42), are adopted in full; 7 2. Defendant Bettencourt’s motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff’s failure to 8 exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED, and the Clerk of 9 Court is directed to enter judgment for this defendant; 10 3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED; 11 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 12 with this order.1 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: 15 March 8, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff’s claims against at least one other defendant survived screening. However, for the time being, the remaining claims have been stayed pending referral to the Post Screening Alternative Dispute Resolution Project. (Doc. No. 46.) 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.
