Relmon H. Davis III v. Gibson et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action with Prejudice, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/13/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RELMON H. DAVIS, III,

12

No. 1:18-cv-00608-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GIBSON, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 25.)

16
17
Plaintiff Relmon H. Davis, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18
19

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

20

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 1, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21
22

recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure

23

to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 25.) The findings and

24

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

25

to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 11.) After being served by mail at his

26

address of record, on November 15, 2019, the findings and recommendations were returned to the

27

court by the U.S. Postal Service marked as “Undeliverable, Refused by Inmate.”

28

/////
1

1

On January 27, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited review of his second amended

2

complaint. (Doc. No. 26.) On January 29, 2020, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion

3

for expedited review as moot, because the magistrate judge had already screened plaintiff’s

4

second amended complaint and recommended dismissal of it in the November 1, 2019 findings

5

and recommendations. (Doc. No. 27.) Additionally, the magistrate judge directed the Clerk of

6

the Court to re-serve those findings and recommendations on plaintiff and granted plaintiff an

7

additional fourteen days from the date of re-service, to file written objections to the findings and

8

recommendations. (Id. at 2.) On February 14, 2020, the court received plaintiff’s written

9

objections to the findings and recommendations, with a proof of service indicating that they were

10

delivered to prison officials for mailing on February 5, 2020. (Doc. No. 29.)1

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

by the record and proper analysis.

15

Plaintiffs objections do not address the deficiencies present in his second amended

16

complaint. Central in that regard is that the allegations of the second amended complaint “are

17

vague and conclusory statements unsupported by any facts” (Doc. No. 25 at 5) and fail to

18

“adequately link [the defendants] to any deprivation of his constitutional rights” (id. at 6). In his

19

objections, plaintiff simply reiterates his conclusory statements and fails to explain how the

20

named defendants have caused the harms alleged. Plaintiff’s most specific argument is that his

21

claims should be “construed as denial of legal services and access to the courts.” (Doc. No. 29 at

22

2.) The findings and recommendations addressed plaintiff’s claims of denial of access to the

23

courts, concluding that “[p]laintiff has not identified which of the named [d]efendants allegedly

24

interfered with his right to access the courts” and “[p]laintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for

25

a denial of his constitutional right to access the courts.” (Doc. No. 25 at 8–9.) Plaintiff’s

26

/////

27
1

28

This date of mailing would render the objections timely filed under the mailbox rule. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 272–73 (1988).
2

1

objections provide no basis to question the analysis set forth in the pending findings and

2

recommendations.

3

Accordingly,

4

1.

5

The findings and recommendations issued on November 1, 2019 (Doc. No. 25) are
adopted in full;
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to

6

2.

7

state a claim; and

8

3.

9
10
11

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 13, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3