Opinion
1:19-cv-01330-AWI-BAM (PC)
11-16-2021
SAMUEL CAMPOSECO, Plaintiff, v. BOUDREAUX, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
(Doc. No. 39)
Plaintiff Samuel Camposeco is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's second-amended complaint against Defendants Stamper and Jones for violation of the First and Sixth Amendments for reading Plaintiff's legal mail outside of Plaintiff's presence and confiscating the legal mail.
On April 27, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that this lawsuit is barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. No. 31. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 4, 2021. Doc. No. 34. Defendants filed a reply on June 10, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a surreply on July 2, 2021. Doc. Nos. 36 & 38.
On October 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Doc. No. 39. Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. Id. at 18. No. objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 39) that were issued on October 8, 2021, are ADOPTED in full;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
a. Plaintiff s claim for violation of the First and Sixth Amendments for an incident on October 3, 2019, is DISMISSED, without prejudice, on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies;
b. As Plaintiff is not making a claim that his jump drive was “confiscated, ” any such claim found by the Court to be cognizable is DISMISSED; and
c. In all other respects, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED;
3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's second-amended complaint against Defendants Stamper and Jones for violation of the First and Sixth Amendments for reading Plaintiff's legal mail outside of Plaintiff's presence on August 19, 2019; and
4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.