(PC) Riley v. Prudhle et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/5/2025 ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations in full. The Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims asserted in plaintiff's 10 first amended complaint are DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim without further leave to amend. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Deputy Clerk KEZ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICO LYNTICE RILEY,

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS AND EIGHTH
AMENDMENT CLAIMS WITHOUT
FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

(Doc. No. 11)

13

v.

14

PRUDHLE, et al.,

15

No. 2:23-cv-01511-DAD-EFB (PC)

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On August 30, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s amended

21

complaint (Doc. No. 10) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s

22

due process and Eighth Amendment claims asserted in his first amended complaint be dismissed

23

without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 11.) Specifically, the

24

magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had again failed to allege that any named defendant was

25

involved in the claimed loss of his property and that, in any event, California law provides a

26

meaningful post-deprivation remedy for property deprivation by a public official. (Id. at 3.) In

27

addition, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had again failed to allege facts showing that the

28

conditions he was allegedly subjected to while housed in administrative segregation or awaiting a
1

1

proposed transfer imposed an atypical or significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary

2

incidents of prison life. (Id. at 4.) As to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim the magistrate judge

3

concluded that the verbal harassment alleged by plaintiff, even if true, failed to state a cognizable

4

claim. (Id. at 5.) Finally, as to both claims the magistrate judge determined the granting of

5

further leave to amend those claims would be futile. (Id. at 4–5.)

6

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

7

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

8

8.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in

9

which to do so has long since passed.

10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

11

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

12

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

13

Accordingly:

14

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 30, 2024 (Doc. No. 11), are

15

ADOPTED in full;

16

2. The Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims asserted in plaintiff’s first amended

17

complaint (Doc. No. 10) are DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

18

without further leave to amend; and

19

3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent

20

with this order.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated:

March 5, 2025
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2