(PC) Black v. United States et al, No. 2:2024cv00811 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/27/24 ADOPTING in full 13 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING this action due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff's pending motions (Doc. Nos. 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ) are DENIED as having been rendered moot by this order. CASE CLOSED. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIVA D. BLACK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:24-cv-00811-DAD-DB (PC) v. UNITED STATES, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19) 16 Plaintiff Siva D. Black is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 17 18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 14, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that this action be dismissed, without leave to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to 22 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 13.) Specifically, the 23 magistrate judge found that “[p]laintiff’s complaint borders on incomprehensible,” and “at no 24 point does plaintiff present a cogent, non-frivolous claim.” (Id. at 3.) Those findings and 25 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 26 to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id. at 6.) On June 3, 2024, 27 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 14.) 28 ///// 1 1 In his objections, plaintiff asserts that he should be granted an opportunity to file an 2 amended complaint, but did not offer any allegations that he would include in a first amended 3 complaint. Instead, plaintiff concurrently filed an unauthorized first amended complaint. (Id., 4 Doc. No. 15.) Out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s 5 unauthorized first amended complaint and finds that plaintiff’s allegations remain largely 6 unchanged and continue to be incomprehensible and frivolous. The magistrate judge correctly 7 concluded that the granting of leave to amend would be futile in this case. (See Doc. No. 13 at 4.) 8 Plaintiff’s objections simply do no provide any basis on which to reject the pending findings and 9 recommendations. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 12 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued on March 14, 2024 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full; 16 2. 17 This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; 18 3. 19 Plaintiff’s pending motions (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19) are denied as having been rendered moot by this order; and 20 4. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. July 27, 2024 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.