(PC) Taylor v. Alardo et al

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/18/2020 RECOMMENDING 20 Motion to Dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 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

BRANDON TAYLOR,

12

No. 2:19-cv-2241 WBS DB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. ALARDO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants used excessive force against him in violation of

19

his Eighth Amendment rights.

20

On March 30, 2020 a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was filed on

21

behalf of defendants Alardo, Martin, and Ochoa.1 (ECF No. 20.) By order dated June 19, 2020,

22

the undersigned informed plaintiff that failure to file a written opposition or statement of no

23

opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of defendants’ motion.

24

(ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff was directed to file an opposition or statement of no opposition within

25

sixty days. Those sixty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, statement of

26

////

27
1

28

Defendants D. Easley and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”) were dismissed on screening. (See ECF Nos. 12, 21.)
1

1

no opposition, requested additional time to do so, updated his address,2 or otherwise responded to

2

the court’s order. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a

3

waiver of opposition to the granting of the motion.

4

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

5

1. Defendants’ March 30, 2020 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) be granted; and

6

2. This action be dismissed.

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

8

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

9

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

10

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

11

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

12

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

13

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

14

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

15

Dated: November 18, 2020

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DB:12
DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/tayl2241.mtd.f&rs

24
25
26
27
28

The court takes judicial notice of CDCR’s Inmate Locator system located at
http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov which reflects that plaintiff is now housed at California State
Prison Sacramento. However, plaintiff’s most recent change of address states that he is
incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. See Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp.,
460 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1155 fn.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (the court may take judicial notice of state
agency records).
2
2