(PC) Joseph v. Noguchi, No. 2:2019cv00733 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/14/2020 ADOPTING in FULL 10 Findings and Recommendations, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Joseph v. Noguchi Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALONZO JAMES JOSEPH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-00733 TLN DB P ORDER v. V. NOGUCHI, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Alonzo James Joseph (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 17 18 action in Amador County Superior Court which was ultimately construed by the state court as a 19 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the action was removed by Defendant V. 20 Noguchi (“Noguchi”) to this Court.1 (See ECF Nos. 1–2.) The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 5, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein 22 23 which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 24 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 10). Thirty days have now 25 passed, and neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 27 28 1 At the time of removal, Noguchi also filed notice that the action was related to the previously-adjudicated Joseph v. Noguchi, No. 2:17-cv-01193-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 4 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 5 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 6 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued November 5, 2020 (ECF No. 10), are 9 10 11 ADOPTED IN FULL, and 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: December 14, 2020 14 15 16 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.