(PC) Bozeman v. Santoro et al, No. 1:2017cv01247 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action Without Leave to Amend signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/25/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BOZEMAN 12 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-00607-DAD-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, v. KELLY SHAPIRO, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. No. 23) 16 17 Plaintiff David Bozeman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with 19 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 10, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 23 claim. (Doc. No. 23.) Finding that the third amended complaint was the fourth time that plaintiff 24 had asserted the same non-cognizable claim, despite receiving ample guidance from the court, the 25 magistrate judge recommended that the third amended complaint be dismissed without further 26 leave to amend. (Id. at 9.) 27 28 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service of the order. (Id. at 10.) On 1 1 2 September 23, 2019, plaintiff timely filed his objections. (Doc. No. 24.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 3 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes the 4 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates arguments raised in his objections to the 6 magistrate judge’s prior recommendations that plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be 7 dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff again asserts that he disagrees with the magistrate 8 judge and that he has “provided sufficient facts pertaining to deliberate indifference on each 9 individual.” (Doc. No. 24 at 4:4–5.) Plaintiff points to his allegation that “Defendants 10 understood that the slippery floor posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff, based on 11 the facts that Defendants knew that other prisoners had slipped in the shower and injured 12 themselves.” (Doc. No. 24 at 2:10–11.) The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion 13 that this allegation does not support an inference that either of the defendants intended to harm 14 plaintiff or that they understood that the slippery floor posed a substantial risk of serious harm to 15 plaintiff. (Doc. No. 23 at 9:4–6.) In short, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to 16 reject the pending findings and recommendations. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued September 10, 2019 (Doc. No. 23) are 19 adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. No. 22) is dismissed without further 20 21 leave to amend; and 22 23 24 25 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 25, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.