(PC) Norwood v Nanganama, et al.,, No. 2:2009cv02929 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/11/11 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 45 ADOPTED IN FULL; dfts' Motion to Dismiss 21 is GRANTED; dfts Nanganama and Raman are DISMISSED, but pltf may file an amended complaint with respect to Ramen at a future date to be determined by the court. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Norwood v Nanganama, et al., Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GREGORY NORWOOD, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. NANGANAMA, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. CIV S-09-2929 LKK GGH P ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On November 18, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 18, 2010, are adopted in 3 full; and 4 2. Defendants’ May 6, 2010, motion to dismiss (Docket No. 21) is granted in that: 5 A. Defendant Nanganama is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 6 7 administrative remedies; B. Defendant Ramen is dismissed, but plaintiff may file an amended complaint 8 with respect to Ramen at a future date to be determined by the court. 9 DATED: January 11, 2011. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.