(PC) Brown v. Gardner et al, No. 2:2015cv01212 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/19/2017 ADOPTING 34 findings and recommendations in full. Defendants' 29 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Brown v. Gardner et al Doc. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN L. BROWN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1212-JAM-EFB P v. ORDER GARDNER, et al., 15 Defendants. 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. On August 8, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After an extension of 23 time, plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 26 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 27 proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2017, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ December 6, 2016 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is granted in part and 4 5 6 7 8 9 denied in part as follows: a. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Gardner are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; and b. The motion is otherwise denied. So ordered. DATED: 12/19/2017 10 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
