Opinion
2:19-cv-00458-DAD-DMC (PC)
10-30-2022
DUPREE LAMONT ADKINS, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS
(DOC. NO. 47)
Plaintiff DuPree Lamont Adkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 3, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's fourth amended complaint and found that plaintiff had stated cognizable Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims and Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claims against all named defendants, but that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. (Doc. No. 47 at 3-6.) The magistrate judge also concluded that no further leave to amend should be granted “because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified in plaintiff's due process claim can be cured” by further amendment. (Id. at 6.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this case proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable in the screening order and that plaintiff's sole remaining due process claim brought against all of the named defendants be dismissed. (Id.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 3, 2022 (Doc. No. 47) are adopted in full;
2. This action proceeds only on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims and Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claims;
3. Plaintiff's due process claim is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.