Opinion
1:21-cv-00668-DAD-BAM (PC)
09-14-2021
JESUS CHIPREZ, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. No. 16)
Plaintiff Jesus Chiprez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 August 18, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that the federal claims in this action be dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's purported state law claim. (Doc. No. 16.) Those 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. at 10.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on September 2, 2021. (Doc. No. 17.)
In his objections, plaintiff realleges some of the same factual allegations that appear in his first amended complaint, but does not address the magistrate judge's reasoning set forth in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiff also requests leave to amend his complaint yet again, but has not suggested that the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge may be cured by amendment, nor has he proffered additional facts which he could allege in good faith which would address the noted deficiencies. (Id. at 2.)
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, including plaintiffs objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 18, 2021 (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;
2. The federal claims asserted in his first amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
3. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff s state law claims, and the state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice to the claims being asserted in state court; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.