United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2022

(PC) Jones v. Aguwa

(PC) Jones v. Aguwa
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided July 8, 2022
(PC) Jones v. Aguwa

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TRACY EUGENE JONES, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01207 JLT SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) HENRY C. AGUWA, et al., ) (Docs. 31, 37) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 This action is proceeding against Defendants T. Cisneros, Henry Aguwa, and R. Dela Cruz for violations of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Cisneros filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (Doc. 31.) The assigned magistrate judge entered Findings and Recommendations recommending that Cisneros’ motion for summary judgment be denied because grievance log number 35977 was sufficient to exhaust the claims against all defendants, including Cisneros. (Id. at 10.)

24 The Court granted the parties 21 days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 37 at 11), and the Court advised them that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Cisneros filed a statement of non-opposition to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 39.)

1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 2 ||452, 454 (th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review. Having carefully reviewed the entir || matter, the Court concludes the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by || the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 6, 2022 (Doc. 37), are adopted.

6 2. Defendant Cisneros’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 31) is denied.

7 3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

9 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: _ July 8, 2022 Cerin | Tower 11 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.