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)

Download PDF
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?