White
(PC) De'Armond, Jr. v. White
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL THOMAS DE’ARMOND JR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01695-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
GRANT DEFENDANT’S EXHAUSTION-
13 v. BASED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT1
14 J. WHITE, (Doc. No. 42) 15 Defendant.
16 FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on 21 November 5, 2021. (Doc. No. 42, “MSJ”). Plaintiff did not file any opposition and the time to do 22 so has expired. See docket, see also L.R. 230(l). For the reasons below, the undersigned 23 recommends the district court grant Defendant’s MSJ. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 A. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint 26 Plaintiff, Michael Thomas De’Armond, Jr. (“De’Armond Jr.” or “Plaintiff”), a state 27 1 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 prisoner, is proceeding pro se on…