UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 24, 2012
DEANDRE GRIFFIN, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. David O. Carter United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.
Nothing in the Objections refutes the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff waited approximately one year and eight months after the alleged incident to submit an inmate grievance. (See R&R at 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff now acknowledges that the "Appeals Coordinator" never actually told him that he had "no available administrative remedies." (Obj. at 3-4; see also R&R at 3-4.) Under such circumstances, Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his Eighth Amendment claim, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006) ("[T]he PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion.").*fn1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;
2. Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties.