(PC) Atkins v. Rios, et al., No. 1:2020cv00193 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 52 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 12/07/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MCKINLEY PIERCE ATKINS, 12 No. 1:20-cv-00193-ADA-CDB (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 E. ROCHA, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 52) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff McKinley Pierce Atkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On September 15, 2022, the then assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 22 recommendations, recommending Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted for 23 Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff was afforded 24 fourteen (14) days to file objections. (Id. at 22.) On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff was granted a 25 thirty (30) day extension of time within which to file any objections. (ECF No. 54.) More than 26 30 days have now passed, and Plaintiff did not file objections.1 27 1 28 The docket reflects Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay and for Appointment of Counsel on October 31, 2022; the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order denying the motion on November 4, 2022. (ECF No. 57.) In the Order, it was noted that Plaintiff’s filing did not “affect the fact his objections to the pending Findings and Recommendations 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 3 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 5 Accordingly, 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2022, (ECF No. 52), are ADOPTED in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his 8 administrative remedies as to his deliberate indifference claims against Defendants 9 De Lussa and Rios, (ECF No. 47), is GRANTED; 10 3. 11 12 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 7, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are due on November 4, 2022. (Id. at 3.) In other words, if Plaintiff intends to file objections, he remains obligated to do so timely, and the instant motion does not affect the deadline for filing said objections.” (Id.) 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.
