(PC) Fenix v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVON FENIX, Case No.: 1:24-cv-0202 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING EXHAUSTION, 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS MILLER AND CASAURANG FROM THE ACTION 15 Defendants. (Docs. 37, 40) 16

17 Davon Fenix seeks to hold defendants Miller, Casaurang, and Soto liable for violations of 18 his civil rights under the Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 15, 24.) Defendants Miller and 19 Casaurang seek summary judgment on the claims raised against them, asserting that Plaintiff 20 failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. 21 The magistrate judge reviewed the undisputed evidence and found Defendants met their 22 burden to demonstrate that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies related to the 23 claims raised against Miller and Casaurang. (Doc. 40 at 8-11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 24 recommended the Court grant the motion and dismiss the claims against Miller and Casaurang 25 without prejudice. (Id. at 11.) In addition, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed 26 on the claim against Soto, who was not a party to the motion. (Id.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified Plaintiff 1 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 2 | Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 3 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 5 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations 6 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 25, 2025 (Doc. 40) are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. 10 3. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Miller and Casaurang are DISMISSED 11 without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate Miller and 13 Casaurang as defendants. 14 5. The action SHALL proceed on Plaintiffs failure to protect claim against 15 Defendant Soto. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _May 30, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28