(PC) Shorter v. Sullivan et al, No. 1:2020cv01823 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations that the Federal Claims be Dismissed, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim and the Court Decline to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/6/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SHORTER, 12 No. 1:20-cv-01823-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE FEDERAL CLAIMS BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND THE COURT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS 17 (Doc. No. 12) 13 14 15 v. SULLIVAN, et al., Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Michael Shorter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 In his second amended complaint, plaintiff describes an incident in which he fell, suffered 23 a knee and back injury, and was allegedly not provided proper medical treatment by prison 24 officials. Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment violations via several defendants’ “deliberate 25 indifference” to his serious medical needs. (Doc. No. 11.) 26 On August 5, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended complaint 27 and issued findings and recommendations recommending that the federal claims in this action be 28 dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted 1 1 and that the court further decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law 2 claims. (Doc. No. 12.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 3 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 4 service. (Id. at 11.) Following an extension of time, plaintiff timely filed objections on October 5 4, 2021. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge’s finding that the defendant’s 6 actions, as pled, did not constitute excessive force or deliberate indifference sufficient to support 7 an Eighth Amendment claim. 8 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 10 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 11 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 13 14 15 16 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 5, 2021, (Doc. No. 12), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s federal claims asserted in this action are dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 17 3. The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims is declined, and 18 plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to their being brought in an 19 action filed in state court; and 20 21 22 23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 6, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.