(PC) Cotton v. Medina ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESLEY COTTON, ) Case No.: 1: 22-cv-0568 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT MEDINA’S MOTION FOR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING 14 S. MEDINA, et al., ) EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ) REMEDIES 15 Defendants. ) ) (Docs. 38, 66) 16 ) 17 Wesley Cotton asserts the defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Corcoran 18 State Prison. Plaintiff seeks to hold Medina liable for failure to protect him under the Eighth 19 Amendment. (Doc. 1 at 3-5; see also Doc. 15 at 2.) Medina seeks summary judgment on the claim 20 raised against her, asserting that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.1 (Doc. 38.) 21 The magistrate judge observed Medina stated in her answer to the complaint: “there is an 22 administrative grievance process available to Plaintiff and admits that Plaintiff exhausted those 23 administrative remedies.” (Doc. 66 at 9, quoting Doc. 23 at 5, ¶ 21.) The magistrate judge determined 24 “[t]his admission is … binding on Defendant Medina, and Defendant Medina’s motion for summary 25 judgment is subject to denial on that basis.” (Id. at 10.) In addition, the magistrate judge reviewed 26 Plaintiff’s grievance and a video of the grievance interview. (Id. at 11-13.) The magistrate judge 27 28 1 Plaintiff also seeks to hold several correctional officers liable for excessive force. (See Doc. 15 at 2; see also Doc. 45.) 1 || found “Plaintiffs grievance contained enough factual specificity to put the prison on notice as to the 2 nature of the wrong for which Plaintiff now seeks redress in this Court under his failure to protect 3 claim.” (/d. at 14.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended Medina’s motion for summary 4 || judgment be denied. 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an 6 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 66 at 14.) The Court also advised the parties that the 7 || “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. 8 || citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor Medina file 9 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. 10 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the action. 11 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 12 || supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 26, 2024 (Doc. 66) are 14 ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Defendant Medina’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) is DENIED. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: _May 2, 2024 ( LAW ph L. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28