(PC) Lazier v. Coalinga State Hospital, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/6/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

THEODORE R. LAZIER,

7
8
9
10

CASE NO. 1:21-cv-01362-AWI-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 16)

11
12
13

Plaintiff Theodore R. Lazier is a former civil detainee and current Florida state prisoner

14 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
15 matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
16 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302.
17

On November 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first-amended

18 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed
19 based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. No.
20 16. Plaintiff was directed to file objections within fourteen days. Id. at 1, 7. On November 22,
21 2021, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff lodged a second-amended complaint. Doc. No. 17. The
22 deadline for Plaintiff to file his objections has expired, and Plaintiff has not otherwise
23 communicated with the Court.
24

Although Plaintiff was not granted further leave to amend, the Court has reviewed the

25 lodged second-amended complaint. As in his first-amended complaint, Plaintiff’s lodged second26 amended complaint asserts a due process claim related to a “confiscation” of his property when he
27 was transferred to a Florida state prison and an access to courts claim under the First Amendment
28 related to a delay in receiving his legal property. The court finds that the amended pleading fails

1 to cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.
2

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, including the lodged
4 second-amended complaint, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are
5 supported by the record and by proper analysis.
6
7

ORDER

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

10
11

15, 2021, are ADOPTED in full;
2.

12
13

The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) that were issued on November

This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim
upon which relief may be granted; and

3.

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

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: January 6, 2022

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2