Bozeman v. Santoro et al
Filing
25
ORDER ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action Without Leave to Amend signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/25/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID BOZEMAN
12
13
14
15
No. 1:18-cv-00607-DAD-GSA (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY SHAPIRO, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. No. 23)
16
17
Plaintiff David Bozeman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
18
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with
19
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On September 10, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
22
recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable
23
claim. (Doc. No. 23.) Finding that the third amended complaint was the fourth time that plaintiff
24
had asserted the same non-cognizable claim, despite receiving ample guidance from the court, the
25
magistrate judge recommended that the third amended complaint be dismissed without further
26
leave to amend. (Id. at 9.)
27
28
The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any
objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service of the order. (Id. at 10.) On
1
1
2
September 23, 2019, plaintiff timely filed his objections. (Doc. No. 24.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
3
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes the
4
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
5
In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates arguments raised in his objections to the
6
magistrate judge’s prior recommendations that plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be
7
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff again asserts that he disagrees with the magistrate
8
judge and that he has “provided sufficient facts pertaining to deliberate indifference on each
9
individual.” (Doc. No. 24 at 4:4–5.) Plaintiff points to his allegation that “Defendants
10
understood that the slippery floor posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff, based on
11
the facts that Defendants knew that other prisoners had slipped in the shower and injured
12
themselves.” (Doc. No. 24 at 2:10–11.) The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion
13
that this allegation does not support an inference that either of the defendants intended to harm
14
plaintiff or that they understood that the slippery floor posed a substantial risk of serious harm to
15
plaintiff. (Doc. No. 23 at 9:4–6.) In short, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to
16
reject the pending findings and recommendations.
17
Accordingly,
18
1. The findings and recommendations issued September 10, 2019 (Doc. No. 23) are
19
adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. No. 22) is dismissed without further
20
21
leave to amend; and
22
23
24
25
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 25, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
2
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?