(PC) Lewis v. Bitter et al, No. 1:2019cv00840 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/12/2021 ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRY LEWIS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00840-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M.D. BITTER, et al., (Doc. No. 35) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Terry Lewis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 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 August 3, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s fifth amended 21 complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed 22 based on plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 23 No. 35.) Following the granting of an extension of time to do so, plaintiff timely filed objections 24 on September 1, 2020. (Doc. No. 40.) 25 In his objections, plaintiff does not submit any arguments addressing the pending findings 26 and recommendations, which screened plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint. Instead, plaintiff’s 27 appears to have submitted a revised proposed complaint, although now it is one brought pursuant 28 to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), with allegations against many of the 1 1 same defendants as were asserted in his fifth amended complaint as well as several others. (Id. at 2 1–3.) Plaintiff was not granted leave to file a sixth amended complaint, and plaintiff had been 3 admonished previously that he “may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a 4 single action.” (Doc. No. 35 at 4) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 5 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 8 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 9 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 This court’s order dismissing such a claim does not foreclose the ability of plaintiff to file 11 a complaint pursuant to Bivens, if he believes it is necessary, but only prohibits him from 12 pursuant to that claim asserting that separate claim and seeking relief in this action. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 35), are 15 16 adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 17 18 19 20 claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 12, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
