(PC)Zaragosa v. Perez et al, No. 1:2019cv01575 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/01/2020. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC)Zaragosa v. Perez et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST ZARAGOSA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. PEREZ, et al., 15 Case No. 1:19-cv-01575-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION (Doc. No. 17) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Ernest Zaragosa (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 31, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened the second amended complaint 21 and issued findings and recommendations recommending that the federal claims in this action be 22 dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 23 granted, and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported 24 state law claims. (Doc. No. 17.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff 25 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 26 service. (Id. at 9.) Following an extension of time (Doc. No. 19.), Plaintiff has failed to file 27 objections. 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 3 the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 6 1. 7 The findings and recommendations issued on July 31, 2020 (Doc. No. 17), are adopted in full; 8 2. 9 The federal claims in this action are dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 10 3. 11 The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is declined, and the state law claims are dismissed, without prejudice; and 12 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 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.