Hatfield v. Maine Department of Corrections

1999 | Cited 0 times | D. Maine | January 8, 1999


Inasmuch as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint reveals that he has not availed himself of the grievance procedure provided within the Maine Department of Corrections, I hereby recommend Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No action shall be brought . . . under section 1983 of this title . . . until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted."); see, eg., Jorss v. Vanknocker, 1998 WL 549463 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 1998) (not reaching the question whether the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional in light of the mandatory nature of the statutory language).


A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within ten (10) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of the objection.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.

Back to top