Dumont v. CDCR Health Care Tracy et al

Filing 22

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/23/2021 ORDERING Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RALPH E. DUMONT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-0101 AC P

v.
CDCR HEALTH CARE TRACY, et al.,

15

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Upon screening the complaint, the undersigned found that it did not state a claim for relief

19
20

and gave plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 17. After plaintiff

21

failed to file an amended complaint, he was given an additional twenty-one days to do so and

22

warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this

23

action be dismissed. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff then filed a notice in which he stated that he received

24

the order granting him additional time to file an amended complaint and that he “find[s] that a

25

claim of relief in the amount of $100,000.00 or what the court deems reasonable would be

26

aceptable [sic].” ECF No. 19. The court advised plaintiff that his notice was not an amended

27

complaint and extended his deadline to file an amended complaint to April 16, 2021. ECF No.

28

20.
1

1

The deadline for amending the complaint has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an

2

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the order. In extending the deadline to file an

3

amended complaint, the court advised plaintiff that if he did not file an amended complaint the

4

court would assume that he was choosing to stand on the allegations of the original complaint and

5

would recommend that this action be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the January 19, 2021

6

Screening Order. Id.

7
8
9
10
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly
assign a United States District Judge to this action.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a
claim for the reasons set forth in the January 19, 2021 Screening Order (ECF No. 17).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

12

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

13

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

14

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings

15

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

16

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

17

(9th Cir. 1991).

18

DATED: April 23, 2021

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2