(PC) Davis v. Phui et al, No. 1:2020cv00276 - Document 97 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 81 Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Defendants Chanza, Cryer, and Sherman, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 11/26/2024. Defendants Chanza, Cryer, and Sherman are DISMISSED from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to correct the docket to reflect only the remaining named Defendants. The matter is returned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
(PC) Davis v. Phui et al Doc. 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELLY B. DAVIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 DR. UGWUEZE, KHUONG PHUI, C. CRYER, JR., STUART SHERMAN, and L. CHANZA, 15 16 Case No. 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS CHANZA, CRYER, AND SHERMAN Doc. 81 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Kelly B. Davis, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action against 18 19 Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United States 20 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff initiated this action on February 24, 2020, and he filed his second amended 21 22 complaint on September 7, 2022. Docs. 1, 54. On February 9, 2024, the assigned magistrate 23 judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the district court grant 24 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Chanza, Cryer, and Sherman 25 because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to those defendants. 26 Doc. 81. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and 27 28 1 Plaintiff initially proceeded pro se but has since retained counsel. See docket. Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommendations. Doc. 82. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 4 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As the magistrate judge 5 correctly noted, the undisputed facts reflect that Plaintiff’s single fully exhausted administrative 6 grievance does not mention the dental care he received nor mention Defendants’ Chanza, Cryer, 7 or Sherman’s actions. Doc. 81 at 10–12. In his objections, Plaintiff contends that “[p]rison 8 officials unlawfully denied Plaintiff his First Amendment right of access to the courts and 9 Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process by imposing a thirty-day time limit to 10 present medical grievances.” Doc. 82 at 2. Plaintiff claims this deprivation occurred because he 11 was “transferred to various medical facilities, was bedridden and generally incapacitated,” id., 12 and, consequently, he was unable to name all the individuals responsible for his treatment. Id. 13 The Court has discretion to consider arguments presented for the first time in objection to 14 a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 15 621–22 (9th Cir. 2000). However, Plaintiff fails to support his new assertions with a declaration 16 or any competent evidence that would establish a genuine dispute of material fact, and Plaintiff 17 does not otherwise articulate a basis for rejecting the magistrate judge’s findings and 18 recommendations. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 // 2 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 1. 3 The findings and recommendations, issued February 9, 2024, Doc. 81, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Defendants Chanza, Cryer, and Sherman are DISMISSED from this action; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to correct the docket to reflect only the remaining 6 7 named Defendants; and 4. The matter is returned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 26, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.