Ronald L. Seay v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et...

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Ronald L. Seay v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et...

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD L. SEAY, No. 1:25-cv-00179-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (Doc. 12) 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 Ronald L. Seay is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this this civil 18 rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. 19 The magistrate judge issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action 20 should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 21 10.) Plaintiff did not file a response. More than a month later, the magistrate judge issued 22 findings and recommendation that recommended this action be dismissed, without prejudice, 23 based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit in compliance 24 with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Doc. 12.) The Court served the Findings and 25 Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. 26 at 3.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that “the failure to file objections within the specified 27 time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on 28 1 | appeal.” Ud. at 13, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

772 F.3d 834, 839

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff 2 | did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 4 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and 5 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 26, 2025 (Doc. 12) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _September 20, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Full Case Name
Ronald L. Seay v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.
Status
Unknown