Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TEODORO SEVERIANO ALCARAZ, No. 2:19-cv-0030 JAM DB P Plaintiff,
v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MICHAEL MARTEL,
Defendant.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 12, 2020, the court issued an order to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed given that in the complaint plaintiff clearly states that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing in this court. (See ECF No. 1 at 3; see also ECF No. 10). At that time, plaintiff was given thirty days within which to file a response that showed cause. (See ECF No. 10 at 6). At that time, plaintiff was also warned that a failure to show cause within this period would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (See id.). To date, plaintiff has neither filed a response nor responded to the court’s order in any way.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
1
*2 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: April 6, 2020April 6, 2020
DLB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/alca0030.fte.f&r
2