Lynch v. Doe, et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40 ; ORDER DISMISSING Action, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted Under Section 1983; ORDER That Dismissal is Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G); ORDER for Clerk to Close Case, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/27/15. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONEY LYNCH,

12
13
14
15
16

1:09-cv-02097-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 40.)

vs.

WARDEN OF PLEASANT VALLEY STATE ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
PRISON, et al.,
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY
Defendants.
BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

17

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT
TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(G)

18

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

19
20
21

Anthoney Lynch (Aplaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

22

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

23

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24

On April 22, 2013, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

25

this action be dismissed based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

26

granted under §1983. The findings and recommendations noted that Plaintiffs claims under the

27

Fourteenth Amendment are cognizable under the Eighth Amendment, and that the claims

28

alleged under the Eighth Amendment fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Of
1

1

significance, the findings and recommendations noted that Plaintiffs Second Amended

2

Complaint (“SAC”) “is devoid of any factual allegations supporting a claim that any of the

3

individual prison officials knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of harm to his health or

4

safety.” Doc. # 40 at 5:14-16. In addition, the findings and recommendations noted that the

5

“bare fact that Plaintiff contracted Valley Fever [does not] give rise to cognizable claim.” Doc.

6

# 40 at 5:19-20 (citing Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). On July 3,

7

2014, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff’s

8

objections to the F&R’s provide an explanation of the relationship of the Defendant parties to

9

the administration of policies and procedures at Pleasant Valley State Prison where Plaintiff

10

alleges he contracted Valley Fever.

However, Plaintiff’s opposition merely restates his

11

conclusory allegations that the Defendants failed to provide appropriate information or medical

12

monitoring to prevent him from acquiring the disease.

13

recommendations, the fact that Plaintiff acquired a disease that is endemic to the environment

14

in which a prison is situated does not give rise to a cognizable claim. There is no claim or

15

evidence alleged that any act by Defendants caused Plaintiff to contract the disease, nor is any

16

evidence alleged that would support the contention that Defendants’ inactions resulted in an

17

outcome that would have been otherwise avoided.

As noted in the findings and

18

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

19

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

20

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

21

supported by the record and proper analysis.

22

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

23

1.

24
25

2013, are adopted in full;
2.

26
27
28

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 22,

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff=s failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;

3.

This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g). See Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); and
2

1

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3