(PC) Sanford v. Eaton et al, No. 1:2020cv00792 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/16/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT L. SANFORD, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. No. 1:20-cv-00792-JLT-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM EATON, et al., (Doc. 35) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Robert L. Sanford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court did not screen the original 19 complaint, because Plaintiff requested leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) 20 Consequently, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first amended complaint, and granted 21 Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. (Docs. 12, 16.) The magistrate judge 22 screened the second amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that the 23 federal claims in this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. 24 (Doc. 21.) The undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in part and dismissed the 25 second amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (Doc. 27.) 26 On May 2, 2022, the magistrate judge screened the third amended complaint and issued 27 findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim 28 upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 35.) On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed objections 1 1 2 to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 36.) According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 3 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds 4 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. In 5 particular, and contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion in his objections, the findings and 6 recommendations correctly conclude that the TAC fails to contain non-conclusory allegations 7 suggesting that any defendant disregarded a risk by failing to take reasonable measures to avoid 8 the risk. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 2, 2022, (Doc. 35), are adopted in 10 11 full. 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim upon 12 13 which relief may be granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 16, 2022 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.