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

11 EMANUEL LEWIS BOONE, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01282 JLT BAM (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT ON EXHAUSTION, DISMISSING 14 STEWART, et al., ) THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 15 Defendants. ) THE CASE ) 16 ) (Docs. 25, 33)

17 Emanuel Lewis Boone seeks to the defendants liable for medical deliberate indifference in 18 violation of his rights arising under the Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 10, 14.) Defendants moved for 19 summary judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as 20 required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. 25.) 21 The magistrate judge found there is no dispute of material fact that Plaintiff failed to fully 22 exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claim against Defendant. (Doc. 33.) Specifically, the 23 magistrate judge determined the undisputed evidence demonstrates that in the relevant grievance, 24 “Plaintiff failed to identify any of Defendants or any specific mistreatment.” (Id. at 7.) The magistrate 25 judge observed: “Despite being notified … that his grievance needed to include a description of the 26 specific complaint relating to his healthcare, Plaintiff included only general allegations of ‘dental 27 malpractice & negligence’ at multiple institutions.” (Id., internal citation omitted.) Because “Plaintiff 28 made no attempt to specify dates or specific locations of his care or to otherwise provide identifying 1 information about specific staff members involved,” the magistrate judge determined the grievance 2 || “was not sufficient to place prison officials on notice of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in this 3 || action, or to any specific mistreatment by staff on any date.” (/d.) The magistrate judge also found 4 || there was no evidence the grievance was timely given Plaintiff's failure to specify the dates. (/d.) 5 || Finally, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff “identified no excuse for his failure to fully exhaust 6 || his administrative remedies for his claims against Defendants.” (/d. at 8.) Therefore, the magistrate 7 || judge recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (/d.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified Plaintiff that 9 || any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 33 at 8.) The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to fil 10 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. (Ud., citing Wilkersc 11 || v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to dec 12 ||so has passed. 13 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 14 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 15 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on March 4, 2024 (Doc. 33) are ADOPTEI 17 in full. 18 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. 19 3. Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED without prejudice for 20 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ March 25, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 25 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28