(PC) Sharonoff v. Tyler et al, No. 2:2019cv01239 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/4/2019 ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING Case without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sharonoff v. Tyler et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH ALLEN SHARONOFF, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-1239 JAM CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER THOMAS TYLER, et al., 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. 20 On October 16, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 On August 27, 2019, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint with 25 leave to amend. In that order, the magistrate judge gave plaintiff instructions and suggestions as 26 to the contents of the amended complaint. The magistrate judge recommends this action be 27 dismissed based upon plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. In his objections, plaintiff 28 asserts he complied with the magistrate judge’s order on July 24, 2019 when he filed a document 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 he titled “Motion for Summary Judgment Based On Defendants’ Failure to Exhaust Available or 2 Provide Available Administrative Remedies.” However, the “Motion . .” was filed before the 3 magistrate judge’s dismissal with leave to amend order was issued. Furthermore, the “Motion 4 ...,” actually construed as a motion for summary judgment by the magistrate judge just as the title 5 suggests, was denied without prejudice in the same order. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 7 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 8 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 9 analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 16, 2019, are adopted in full; and 12 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 13 14 15 16 DATED: December 4, 2019 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
