(PC) Razaq v. California Department of Corrections et al, No. 1:2020cv01116 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations Regarding DISMISSAL of Action for Failure to State a Claim signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/7/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAHLILULLAH RAZAQ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01116-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. No. 17) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Kahlilullah Razaq (“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 September 29, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that the federal claims in this action be dismissed based on 22 Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Court 23 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported state law claims. (Doc. 24 No. 17.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 25 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 10.) On 26 November 23, 2020, following an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint 27 in lieu of objections. (Doc. No. 20.) 28 /// 1 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, including Plaintiff’s 3 objections in the form of a second amended complaint, the Court concludes that the Magistrate 4 Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 6 1. 7 8 are adopted in full; 2. 9 10 The federal claims in this action are dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted; 3. 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on September 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 17), The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is declined, and the state law claims are dismissed, without prejudice; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 7, 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.
