(PC) Wane v. Korkor

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 IBRAHIMA WANE, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0813 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 14 W. KORKOR, et al., ) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 15 Defendants. ) THIS CASE ) 16 ) (Docs. 36, 41) ) 17

18 Ibrahima Wane seeks to hold the defendants—two physicians who offer care at California 19 Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility—liable for violations of his civil rights under the Eighth 20 Amendment. (See Doc. 15.) Defendants move for summary judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to 21 exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and his claims 22 related to treatment more than four years before filing are barred. (Doc. 36.) 23 The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff “raised no argument in opposition to Defendants’ 24 contention that his claims arising from events prior to July 1, 2018 are barred by the statute of 25 limitations.” (Doc. 41 at 10.) In addition, the magistrate judge found it was “undisputed that Plaintiff 26 did not fully exhaust any administrative remedies with respect to his claims in this action for any 27 medical treatment that occurred after July 1, 2018.” (Id.) Instead, the magistrate judge found 28 Plaintiff’s evidence showed only that he filed a grievance at the institutional level, and the grievance 1 || was not exhausted to a higher level. Ud.) Finally, the magistrate judge found “the continuing- 2 || violations doctrine does not apply to Plaintiff's claims.” (Ud. at 11-12.) Therefore, the magistrate jud 3 || recommended the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (/d. at 12.) 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an 5 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 41 at 12.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that the “failur 6 || to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 7 || magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (d., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 8 || (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 10 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 11 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 11, 2025 (Doc. 41) are ADOPTED 13 in full. 14 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 36) is GRANTED. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: _March 29, 2025 ( Li pA LU. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28