(PC) Hammler v. State of California et al, No. 1:2019cv00784 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER Dismissing Action, With Prejudice, Due to Plaintiff's Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Hammler v. State of California et al Doc. 38 Case 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (Doc. No. 37) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 23, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the federal claims in this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to 22 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and that the court decline to exercise 23 supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s purported state law claims. (Doc. No. 37.) Those 24 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 25 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff did not file 26 objections, and the time in which to do so has passed. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 2 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 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 5 Accordingly, 1. 6 7 adopted in full; 2. 8 9 12 13 The federal claims in this action are dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 3. 10 11 The findings and recommendations issued on July 23, 2020 (Doc. No. 37) are The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, and those claims are dismissed, without prejudice; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 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.