(PC) Eastman v. Tuolumne County Jail et al, No. 1:2020cv01303 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING Action for Failure to State a Claim and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge and CLOSE the CASE signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/9/2021. 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 JOSEPH CLARENCE EASTMAN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. 1:20-cv-01303-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE THE CASE (Doc. No. 22) Plaintiff Joseph Clarence Eastman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 12, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended 22 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, 23 without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 24 and failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 22.) The 25 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that plaintiff’s 26 objections, if any, were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service. (Id. at 12.) 27 Although the deadline to file objections had passed, on March 18, 2021, plaintiff filed 28 objections to the findings and recommendations, asserting that he would like to proceed upon the 1 1 first amended complaint that was not screened rather than the second amended complaint that was 2 screened by the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff does not otherwise address the merits 3 of the pending findings and recommendations. (See id.) 4 The court finds plaintiff’s request to be unwarranted. Having reviewed both the first and 5 second amended complaints, the court finds the allegations therein to be largely the same, and 6 both fail to state a cognizable claim for relief. It would be an unnecessary expenditure of judicial 7 resources for the court to vacate the pending findings and recommendations merely to screen 8 plaintiff’s first amended complaint. As plaintiff has not otherwise addressed the merits of the 9 magistrate judge’s screening order, and in any case has filed untimely objections, the court finds 10 that plaintiff has failed to present any basis upon which the findings and recommendations should 11 be rejected. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 13 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 14 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 15 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 12, 2021, (Doc. No. 22), are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.