Ford v. King et al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING 46 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DISMISSING ACTION as Time-Barred and Due to Plaintiff's Failure to State a Claim signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/27/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARREN VINCENT FORD,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-00822-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
AUDREY KING, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION AS TIME-BARRED AND DUE TO
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
(Doc. No. 46)

17
18

Plaintiff Darren Vincent Ford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

20

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

21

On July 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended

22

complaint (“FAC”) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be

23

dismissed as time-barred and due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 46.)

24

In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s claims, which are predicated on his

25

discharge from Coalinga State Hospital on October 28, 2011, are barred by the applicable statute

26

of limitations because he filed this action on June 15, 2017. (Id. at 5.) In addition, the magistrate

27

judge found that plaintiff made “no allegations to demonstrate that any equitable tolling should

28

apply or to explain the approximate two-year delay in bringing this action.” (Id.) The pending

1

1

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections

2

thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 5.) On August 10, 2020,

3

plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 47.)

4

In his objections, plaintiff does not address the analysis set forth in the pending findings

5

and recommendations or proffer allegations to show that equitable tolling of the statute of

6

limitations could apply here. (Doc. No. 47.) In fact, plaintiff states that he “cannot really object

7

to the . . . findings and recommendations.” (Id. at 1.)

8
9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

10

objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

11

and by proper analysis.

12

Accordingly,

13

1.

14
15

adopted in full;
2.

18
19

This action is dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of limitations and due
to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and

16
17

The findings and recommendations issued on July 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 46) are

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 27, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2