From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deberry v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
1:22-cv-00280-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-00280-DAD-BAM (PC)

06-03-2022

RONALD LEE DEBERRY, JR., Plaintiff, v. CRCR, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 10)

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Deberry, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 April 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 10.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) On May 11, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.) Therein, plaintiff repeats the same factual allegations set forth in his first amended complaint (Doc. No. 9), which were addressed thoroughly and correctly by the magistrate judge in the pending findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 10). Plaintiff also requests that the court settle this action. (Doc. No. 9.) To the extent plaintiff is requesting a settlement conference, such a request is premature in light of the court's conclusion that plaintiff's first amended complaint fails to state any cognizable claims. In his objections, plaintiff does not otherwise address the analysis set forth in the findings and recomm endati ons.

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 plaintiff's objections, 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 April 15, 2022 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted;

2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Deberry v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
1:22-cv-00280-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Deberry v. CDCR

Case Details

Full title:RONALD LEE DEBERRY, JR., Plaintiff, v. CRCR, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 3, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-00280-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)