From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 4, 2022
19cv2126-JO-KSC (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022)

Opinion

19cv2126-JO-KSC

04-04-2022

ABONILICO CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE WARDEN AND CMO WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

JINSOOK OHTA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Abonilico Carroll ("Plaintiff) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Warden ("Warden") and Chief Medical Officer ("CMO") of Richard J. Donovan state prison-where Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of the incidents giving rise to his lawsuit-and correctional officers S. Miller ("Miller") and C. Wright ("Wright"). Dkt. 30 ("SAC"). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the SAC is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), which provide that a cause of action that fails to state a claim can be dismissed sua sponte by the Court "at any time." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), § 1915A(b). On January 24, 2022, Magistrate Judge Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs claims against the Warden and the CMO be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dkt. 104 (the "Report"). The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed no later than February 25, 2022. Id. On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a concurrence to the Report. Dkt. 105. To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.

The Court reviews de novo the portions of the Report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. "The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id.

Neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed the Report, the Court finds that the Report is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford's Report (Dkt. 104) in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DISMISSES the claims against the Warden and the CMO with prejudice and without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Carroll v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 4, 2022
19cv2126-JO-KSC (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022)
Case details for

Carroll v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs.

Case Details

Full title:ABONILICO CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Apr 4, 2022

Citations

19cv2126-JO-KSC (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022)