Jones v. Sullivan

Full title: WILLIAM J. JONES, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN J. SULLIVAN, Defendant.

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2020

No. 1:19-cv-00477-DAD-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-00477-DAD-JDP (PC)

04-21-2020

WILLIAM J. JONES, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN J. SULLIVAN, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CASE

(Doc. No. 10)

Plaintiff William J. Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 March 3, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice due to his repeated failures¹ to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 10.) The 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. at 4.) On March 30, 2020, plaintiff filed untimely objections.² (Doc. No. 11.)

1 Plaintiff originally filed a petition for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 1.) With the court's permission, he filed an amended pleading, which appeared to allege a § 1983 claim. (Doc. No. 3.) The court then permitted plaintiff to convert his habeas petition to a § 1983 action. (Doc. Nos. 5, 6.)

2 Although untimely filed, the court has nonetheless considered plaintiff's objections. However, therein plaintiff merely reiterates the factual allegations contained in his complaint and fails to meaningfully address the magistrate judge's legal reasoning or findings. (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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE