(PC) Cox v. Daram, No. 2:2020cv01295 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/08/2021 ADOPTING 50 The Findings and Recommendations in full. GRANTING 45 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to file a new suit on the same grounds. Plain tiff's 38 and 48 Motions for preliminary injunctive relief are DENIED without prejudice to their renewal in a separate action. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Cox v. Daram Doc. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST LEE COX, Jr., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:20-cv-01295 KJM DB P v. ORDER VASUKI DARAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 18, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 18, 2021, are adopted in full. 5 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative 6 remedies (ECF No. 45) is granted without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file a new suit on the 7 same grounds.1 8 9 3. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 38, 48) are denied without prejudice to their renewal in a separate action. 10 11 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close this case. DATED: December 8, 2021. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff has now exercised this right. See ECF Nos. 51 & 55. 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.
