(PC) Woods v. Smith et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/25/24 ADOPTING 39 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING 28 Christopher Smith's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING Christopher Smith from the action with no leave to amend. This action is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYNN WOODS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:22-cv-00640-DAD-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT SMITH’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM BROUGHT AGAINST HIM (Doc. Nos. 28, 39) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Lynn Woods is a state prisoner proceedings pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that defendant Christopher Smith’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 23 claim brought against him (Doc. No. 28) be granted. (Doc. No. 39.) Specifically, the magistrate 24 judge concluded that, while plaintiff’s claim brought against defendant Smith was not time- 25 barred, plaintiff had failed to sufficiently allege that defendant Smith either directly participated 26 in the alleged constitutional violations or had actual knowledge of the alleged violations and 27 failed to prevent them. (Id. at 3–7.) The magistrate judge also concluded that leave to amend 28 would be futile given that plaintiff had been unable to adequately plead a claim against defendant 1 1 Smith despite filing multiple amended complaints. (Id. at 7–8.) 2 Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 3 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 9.) No 4 party filed any objections to the pending findings and recommendations, and the time to do so has 5 passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 7 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 8 court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 9 analysis.1 10 Accordingly: 11 1. 12 The findings and recommendations issued on February 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 39) are adopted; 13 2. 14 Defendant Christopher Smith’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim brought against him (Doc. No. 28) is granted; 15 3. 16 Plaintiff’s claim brought against defendant Smith is dismissed without further leave to amend; 17 4. Defendant Christopher Smith is dismissed from this action; 18 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendant 19 Christopher Smith has been terminated as a named defendant in this action; and 20 6. 21 proceedings. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 25 27 28 March 25, 2024 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 26 This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 1 The court does decline to adopt the sentence in the pending findings and recommendations which attributes a quotation to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014). (See Doc. No. 39 at 7.) The court has not located the quoted language in the cited decision. 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?