Richard Jackson v. E. Grant et al
Filing
95
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge R. Gary Klausner. IT IS ORDERED:1. The Report and Recommendation 91 is accepted; 2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANT ED, and plaintiff's federal civil rights claims are DISMISSED without further leave to amend and with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and his state law claims are dismissed without further leave to amend but without prejudice; 3. The clerk shall serve this Order on all counsel or parties of record. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (ch)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12
RICHARD JACKSON,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
E. GRANT, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 15-9642-RGK (PLA)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
I.
19
INTRODUCTION
20
On October 6, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
21
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this action be dismissed without further leave to
22
amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 91). On November 27, 2017, following an extension
23
of time, plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R. (“Objections”; ECF No. 94).
24
/
25
/
26
/
27
/
28
/
1
II.
2
DISCUSSION
3
In his Objections, plaintiff argues that his diabetic condition is a serious medical condition.
4
The Magistrate Judge concluded, however, that plaintiff had adequately alleged an objectively
5
serious medical need. See R&R at 5.
6
Next, in his Objections, as alleged in his pleadings, plaintiff’s only allegation concerning
7
defendant Grant is that she “constantly illegally denied diabetic insulin” to plaintiff. (ECF No. 94
8
at 2). Although plaintiff now includes a list of “witnesses” (id. at 4), plaintiff once again fails to set
9
forth factual allegations showing any specific incident when defendant Grant refused to provide,
10
or prevented plaintiff from receiving, his insulin. Plaintiff also argues, with no supporting factual
11
allegations, that defendant Grant’s “removal” from her position was relevant to plaintiff’s claim
12
against her. (Id. at 3). In deciding whether plaintiff’s allegations plausibly state a claim, the Court
13
does not assume that such conclusory and unsupported statements are true. See, e.g., Chavez
14
v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (“a court discounts conclusory statements,
15
which are not entitled to the presumption of truth, before determining whether a claim is
16
plausible”). Accordingly, nothing in plaintiff’s Objections alters the conclusion reached in the
17
Report and Recommendation that plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to nudge plaintiff’s federal
18
civil rights claims “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
19
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
20
21
III.
22
CONCLUSION
23
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, the
24
other records on file herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and plaintiff’s
25
Objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of
26
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The
27
Court accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
28
2
1
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
2
1.
The Report and Recommendation is accepted;
3
2.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, and plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims
4
are dismissed without further leave to amend and with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and
5
his state law claims are dismissed without further leave to amend but without prejudice;
6
3.
The clerk shall serve this Order on all counsel or parties of record.
7
8
9
DATED: November 30, 2017
__________________________________
HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?