Hill v. Pfeifer

Full title: TAFT L. HILL, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFER, Warden at Kern Valley State…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 16, 2019

No. 1:19-cv-01221-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-01221-DAD-SAB (PC)

12-16-2019

TAFT L. HILL, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFER, Warden at Kern Valley State Prison; et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. Nos. 10, 12, 13)

Plaintiff Taft L. Hill is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 10.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections there to were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (Id.) On November 14, 2019, plaintiff filed his objections (Doc. No. 11), in addition to a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file a second amended complaint and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) /////

However, plaintiff's objections fail to meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge's finding that his first amended complaint does not state a cognizable claim. As the magistrate judge pointed out, the First Amended Complaint does not allege facts which, if proven, would demonstrate that defendants' deliberate indifference to the lack of certain cleaning supplies for plaintiff's Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ("CPAP") machine caused plaintiff to suffer harm. In addition, plaintiff appears to acknowledge that he is unable to allege any additional facts that would support a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 11.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this 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 October 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim;

3. Plaintiff's motions for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and for appointment of counsel are denied as moot (Doc. Nos. 12, 13); and

4. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16 , 2019

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE