1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD LEE THOMAS, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01675 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING EXHAUSTION, 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. (Docs. 32, 42) 16

17 Richard Lee Thomas seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 18 while housed at Kern Valley State Prison. (Docs. 13, 18.) Defendants seek summary judgment, 19 asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust all his administrative remedies. (Doc. 32-1 at 6.) 20 Plaintiff admits that he failed to exhaust the administrative remedies, but he argues the failure 21 should be excused. (See Doc. 38 at 1; see also id. at 1-8.) 22 The assigned magistrate judge observed it was undisputed that Plaintiff did not exhaust his 23 administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (Doc. 42 at 16.) Although Plaintiff asserted 24 that “he did not do because he did not understand the process, he cannot trust CDCR, and … 25 exhaustion is irrelevant,” the magistrate judge found these contentions were not supported by the 26 record or the governing legal requirements. (Doc. 42 at 16; see also id. at 16-18.) The magistrate 27 judge observed that Plaintiff’s distrust of the CDCR was insufficient to excuse the failure to 1 | Reform Act. (Ud. at 17, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).) In addition, the magistrate judge found the 2 | record demonstrated Plaintiff understood the grievance process and was also advised several 3 | times that he could appeal the outcome if dissatisfied with the institutional responses he received 4 | from KSVP. (Cd. at 18.) Because it was undisputed that “Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 5 | administrative remedies regarding his Eighth Amendment claims” and Plaintiff did not present 6 || evidence that this failure “should be excused,” the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant 7 | the motion for summary judgment and dismiss the action without prejudice. (/d.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified Plaintiff 9 | that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 42 at 19.) The Court advised him that the 10 | “failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights 11 | on appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

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

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 14 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations 15 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 6, 2025 (Doc. 42) are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED. 19 3. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative 20 remedies. 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants, terminate all 22 pending motions, and to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 28, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28