Austin v. State of California et al, No. 1:2022cv00252 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations ; ORDER DISMISSING Action due to Plaintiff's Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/2/2022. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY A. AUSTIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:22-cv-00252-DAD-SAB v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Defendants. (Doc. No. 8) 16 17 Plaintiff Gregory A. Austin, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 18 action on March 1, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found 20 21 that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 6.) In that screening order, the 22 court provided plaintiff guidance regarding the pleading and legal standards applicable to the 23 several claims that he was attempting to assert in his complaint. (Id. at 4–6.) Plaintiff was 24 granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from service of that screening 25 order. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on May 6, 2022. (Doc. No. 26 7.) 27 28 On May 13, 2022, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s FAC and issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court dismiss this action, without granting further leave 1 1 to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. 2 (Doc. No. 8.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that, despite the guidance provided in the 3 screening order addressing plaintiff’s original complaint, in his FAC plaintiff again had failed to 4 state any cognizable claims. (Id.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on 5 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 6 days after service. (Id. at 7.) On May 24, 2022, plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending 7 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 9.) 8 9 In his objections, plaintiff merely restates the allegations in his FAC. (Compare Doc. No. 9 with Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff does not address the analysis set forth in the pending findings and 10 recommendations or proffer new allegations that he would include in an amended complaint if he 11 were granted leave to file a second amended complaint. (Id.) 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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 14 objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 15 and by proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. 18 19 adopted; 2. 20 21 22 23 The findings and recommendations issued on May 13, 2022 (Doc. No. 8) are This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2022 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.