Townes

Townes v. Paule

Good Law
407 F. Supp. 2d 1210·2005 WL 3591981·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39496
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 13, 2005CIV. 05CV0264JAHAJBCalifornia4,347 words

Opinion

Opinion

Houston, J.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging defendants violated his constitutional rights. In lieu of an answer, defendants Brunner, Castillo and Paule (collectively “defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with the exhaust requirement set forth by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a report and recommendation (“report”) to this Court recommending defendants’ motion be granted. Objections to the report were due by September 30, 2005, but neither party filed objections. After careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report in its entirety and GRANTS defendants’ motion in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The instant complaint, filed on February 7, 2005, alleges that, on January 6, 2004, defendant Paule used…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.