(PC) Beaton v. U.S. Immigration ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL NIVARD BEATON, No. 2:19-cv-02039-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Nivard Beaton (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 18 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 28, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 17.) On June 8, 2020, 23 Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 18.) 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 27 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 28 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 1 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 2 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 3 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 5 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 6 judge’s analysis. 7 Plaintiff’s objections are argumentative but lacking in any factual or legal basis. As the 8 Findings and Recommendations note, the magistrate judge provided Plaintiff instructions on how 9 to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim on multiple occasions. (See ECF No. 17 at 2.) 10 Plaintiff’s continued failure to identify any factual allegations in support of his claims, however, 11 demonstrates that granting leave to amend a third time would be futile. Gardner v. Marino, 563 12 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend when 13 amendment would be futile). Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 28, 2020 (ECF No. 17), are adopted in 16 full; 17 2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon 18 which relief can be granted; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: June 19, 2020 22 23 24 25 26 27 28