(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.)

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