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)

Download PDF
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

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?