(PC) Bowers v. California State Prison Sacramento et al, No. 2:2022cv01919 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/24/23 ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim. CASE CLOSED (Licea Chavez, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bowers v. California State Prison Sacramento et al Doc. 9 Case 2:22-cv-01919-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAQUINTON D. BOWERS, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:22-cv-01919-DAD-AC (PC) Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (Doc. No. 5) 17 18 Plaintiff LaQuinton D. Bowers is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 29, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without leave to amend, due to 23 plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 5.) 24 Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 25 any objection thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. 26 On January 5, 2023, plaintiff filed a form notice of appeal that stating that the filing is 27 plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) This form 28 document does not contain any explanation of any objections to the pending findings and 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-01919-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 2 1 recommendations that plaintiff may have. Accordingly, plaintiff’s filing provides no basis upon 2 which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 5 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 6 record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. 9 The findings and recommendations issued on November 29, 2022 (Doc. No. 5) are adopted in full; 10 2. 11 This action is dismissed without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and 12 3. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. January 24, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 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.
