From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez v. Khale

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2021
1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG (PC)

11-18-2021

ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. KHALE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(DOC. NO. 11)

Plaintiff Israel Maldonado Ramirez is a civil detainee at Atascadero State Hospital and is proceeding 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 September 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend because plaintiff's complaint is frivolous. (Doc. No. 11.) Additionally, the assigned magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's motions to leave be denied. (See Doc. Nos. 5, 6, 8.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 1 that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Doc. No. 11 at 7.) On October 27, 2021, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 13.) Those objections present no coherent argument for why this court should not adopt the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff appears to mistakenly believe that there is a “federal leave” program whereby he can petition for his immediate release. (Doc. No. 11 at 5.) As stated in the pending findings and recommendations, “there is no such authority for his release from confinement.” (Id.) Plaintiff has since filed similar motions. (Doc. Nos. 12, 15.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 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 September 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in full;
2. This case is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend;
3. Plaintiffs motions to leave (Doc. Nos. 5, 6, 8, 12, 15) are denied; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2


Summaries of

Ramirez v. Khale

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2021
1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021)
Case details for

Ramirez v. Khale

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. KHALE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 18, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021)