(PC) Austin v. Sherman et al, No. 1:2018cv01630 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/2/2020. CASE CLOSED.(Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Austin v. Sherman et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMPSON S. AUSTIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 1:18-cv-01630-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM SHERMAN, et al., (ECF No. 22) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Sampson S. Austin (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and 17 18 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On May 4, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended 22 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the federal 23 claims in this action for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted and 24 that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported state law 25 claims. (ECF No. 22.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 26 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 27 service. (Id. at 9–10.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has now expired. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 4, 2020, (ECF No. 22), are adopted in 7 8 full; 2. The federal claims in this action are dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure 9 10 to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted; 3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported state 11 12 law claims; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2020 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.
