(PC) Shrader v. Arviza

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS C. SHRADER, No. 1:22-cv-01413-DAD-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 M. ARVIZA, ACTION BROUGHT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1361 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 13) 16 17 Plaintiff Thomas C. Shrader is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 20, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that the pending § 1361 petition be dismissed because 22 “[p]laintiff admits on the face of his Petition that [he] did not exhaust his administrative remedies 23 prior to filing this case,” as is required. (Doc. No. 13 at 3–5.) Further, the magistrate judge 24 explained that even if plaintiff’s pleading is construed as seeking injunctive relief against the 25 warden of Federal Correctional Institution – Mendota in an action brought under Bivens v. Six 26 Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that requested 27 remedy has been rendered moot by plaintiff’s transfer to a different correctional institution. (Id. 28 at 5–6.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 1 | notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Ud. at 2 | 6.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the 3 | time in which to do so has now passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 5 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 20, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative 11 remedies; and 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ April 16, 2024 □□□ A. 2, ye 15 DALE A. DROZD 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28