(PC) Cox v. Gamez

Opinion

D’ANDRE DAYMAR COX, No. 2:20-CV-1893-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. GAMEZ, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21, and request for judicial notice in support thereof, ECF No. 22. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Defendants argue that the operative first amended complaint must be dismissed in its entirety as to all claims against both named defendants because Plaintiff’s allegations and judicially noticeable evidence show that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, in violation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See ECF No. 21-1. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(c), the Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion as consent to the relief requested. / / / / / / / / / Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice and motion to dismiss, ECF Nos. 21 and 22, be granted. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: February 14, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE