(PC) DeBerry v. CDCR, et al., No. 1:2022cv00280 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/03/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD LEE DEBERRY, JR., 12 13 14 15 No. 1:22-cv-00280-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CRCR, et al., (Doc. No. 10) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ronald Lee Deberry, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim 22 upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 10.) Those findings and recommendations were 23 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 24 fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) On May 11, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending 25 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.) Therein, plaintiff repeats the same factual 26 allegations set forth in his first amended complaint (Doc. No. 9), which were addressed 27 thoroughly and correctly by the magistrate judge in the pending findings and recommendations 28 (Doc. No. 10). Plaintiff also requests that the court settle this action. (Doc. No. 9.) To the extent 1 1 plaintiff is requesting a settlement conference, such a request is premature in light of the court’s 2 conclusion that plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state any cognizable claims. In his 3 objections, plaintiff does not otherwise address the analysis set forth in the findings and 4 recommendations. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 6 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 7 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 8 by proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, 1. 11 12 adopted; 2. 13 14 15 16 17 The findings and recommendations issued on April 15, 2022 (Doc. No. 10) are This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.