(PC) Winston, Jr v. Paul, No. 1:2022cv00343 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted, Without Leave to Amend signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/28/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MYOHO MYSTIC WINSTON, JR., 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 1:22-cv-00343-JLT-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. (Doc. 8) RUSSELL K. PAUL, Defendant. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations that this action be 18 dismissed for failure to state a claim and without further leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff filed 19 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 9.) 20 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 21 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court 22 concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record 23 and by proper analysis. 24 Plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations, arguing that he only complains 25 about the past denial of treatment, not an ongoing lack of treatment as the findings and 26 recommendations suggests. (Doc. 9 at 2.) However, the Court only rejected the allegations to the 27 extent that Plaintiff complained about an ongoing lack of treatment and separately addressed his 28 allegations to the extent that he complained about a past denial of treatment. (Doc. 8 at 6-7.) 1 1 Moreover, the Court reasonably construed the allegations as complaining about the lack of 2 ongoing treatment since Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring Defendant to provide him surgery. 3 (Id. at 7.) 4 Plaintiff’s remaining objections generally assert that Plaintiff’s allegations give rise to a 5 deliberate indifference claim. (Doc. 9.) However, the objections provide no basis for rejecting 6 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, which correctly explain why Plaintiff’s 7 claims cannot proceed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. 9 10 ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on April 26, 2022 (Doc. 8), are Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, without leave to amend. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 28, 2022 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.
