Case 2:20-cv-05935-JFW-ADS Document 74 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:604

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KENYATTA Q. MITCHELL, Case No. 2:20-05935 JFW (ADS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

14 D. MELO, et al., RECOMMENDATION

15 Defendants.

16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ Motion for 18 Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 44), all opposition and reply papers, (Dkt. Nos. 63-65), 19 and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. No. 71). 20 On August 2, 2022, Defendants filed objections. (Dkt. No. 73.) The Court has engaged 21 in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 22 objections were made. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the 23 Magistrate Judge. 24 ase 2:20-cv-05935-JFW-ADS Document 74 Filed 08/05/22 Page2of2 Page ID #:60

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted, (Dkt. No. 71); and 3 2, The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, (Dkt. No. 44). 4 A separate order will be issued setting the evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue

5 of whether Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies as required under the 6 || Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) 7 (“If summary judgment is not appropriate, the district judge may decide disputed g || questions of fact in a preliminary proceeding.”). 10 || DATED: August 5, 2022 ji OA. JL

ONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER

11 gone d States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24