(PC) Jones v. Sullivan, No. 1:2019cv00477 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/21/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00477-DAD-JDP (PC) v. WARDEN J. SULLIVAN, 15 Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CASE (Doc. No. 10) 16 17 18 Plaintiff William J. Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 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 21 22 findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice 23 due to his repeated failures1 to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 10.) The findings and 24 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 25 ///// 26 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.) 1 1 27 28 1 to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 4.) On March 30, 2020, plaintiff filed 2 untimely objections.2 (Doc. No. 11.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 The findings and recommendations issued on March 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full; 9 2. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: April 21, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.) 2 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.