Clifton v. Pierre et al

Filing 34

ORDER Granting 33 Findings and Recommendation and Granting Defendants' 25 Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/26/16. Response to Third Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM CLIFTON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:13-cv-1325-DAD-DLB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
JEAN PEIRRE, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
STATE LAW CLAIMS

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 25 and 33)

17
18

Plaintiff William Clifton is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of

19

Corrections and Rehabilitation proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his third amended

20

complaint in this civil rights action. (Doc. Nos. 4 and 17.) In his complaint plaintiff alleges four

21

causes of action: (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

22

defendant Talley; (2) violation of the First Amendment also brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

23

against defendant Talley; (3) medical negligence against defendants Pierre and Talley; and (4)

24

intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Talley. (Doc. No. 17.)

25

On September 28, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims

26

on the grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with the administrative claim requirement of the

27

California Government Claims Act. (Doc. No. 25.) The matter was referred to a United States

28

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

1

On March 21, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

2

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 33.) Those findings and

3

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto

4

must be filed within thirty days. (Id.) The parties have not filed objections and the time for doing

5

so has long since passed.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

7

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the

8

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

9
10

Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 33), filed March 21, 2016, are adopted in

11

full;

12

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 25) is granted;

13

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without leave to amend; and

14

4. Defendants shall file a response to the third amended complaint within twenty-one days of

15
16
17

the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 26, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2