(PC) Powell v. Gomes ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL, No. 2:21-cv-0781 DJC DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GOMES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 1, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty 23 days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 26 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 27 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 28 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). The Court has reviewed the file and finds 1 | the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 2 | Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 59) are adopted in full; and 4 2. Administrative remedies were unavailable to plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is 5 excused from the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA. 6 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial 7 proceedings. 8 9 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _May 10, 2024 “Darel A CDbnetto Hon. Daniel alabretta " UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 DLB:9/powe0781.801 exh 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28