(PC) Tufono v. Thurmon ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARVELLO L. TUFONO, No. 2:20-cv-1118 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. THURMON, 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations and the time for filing objections has expired.1 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 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 1 Plaintiff filed a statement on July 29, 2020, but it is unrelated to the findings and 28 recommendations. 1 | by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 | ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 In Mr. Tufono’s original complaint, he states he did not exhaust his administrative 5 || remedies because he is in need of “immediate relief.” Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1. There are no 6 || “special” exceptions to the PLRA requirement for administrative exhaustion. Ross v. Blake, 136 7 || S.Ct. 1850, 1853 (2016). “When it is clear from the face of the complaint and any attached 8 | exhibits that a plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedies before commencing 9 || an action, the action may be dismissed on screening for failure to state a claim.” Medina v. 10 || Sacramento Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, No. 2:16-CV-0765 AC P, 2016 WL 6038181, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 11 |} Oct. 14, 2016). Because Mr. Tufono’s complaint clearly reflects he did not exhaust his 12 || administrative remedies, the complaint must be dismissed. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 11, 2020, are adopted in full; 15 2. This action 1s dismissed without prejudice; and 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 | DATED: March 24, 2021. 18 19 l ti / ¢ q_/ 50 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28