(PC) Villegas v. Spearman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDOLFO VILLEGAS, Jr., No. 2:19-cv-01539-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. SPEARMAN, Warden, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Rudolfo Villegas, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 this 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 April 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 15.) On June 15, 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 merely reassert the claims set forth in his Complaint and lack any 8 legal support. As the Findings and Recommendations correctly note, the exhibits attached to the 9 Complaint demonstrate Plaintiff’s request for parole eligibility under Proposition 57 was properly 10 denied. (ECF No. 15 at 4 (citing ECF No. 14 at 10, 21).) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s attempt to 11 convert what is essentially a state law claim into a federal due process claim is unsupported by 12 legal authority and therefore unavailing. (See id.) Indeed, the Findings and Recommendations 13 identified case law rejecting the very premise Plaintiff attempts to assert here. (See id.) 14 Plaintiff’s objections neither address this case law nor identify legal authority compelling a 15 different result. Finally, despite being granted the opportunity to amend, Plaintiff has 16 demonstrated he cannot cure the identified deficiencies and granting further leave to amend 17 would be futile. Gardner v. Marino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of 18 discretion in denying leave to amend when amendment would be futile). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 19 objections are overruled. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 14, 2020 (ECF No. 15), are adopted in 22 full; 23 2. This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 24 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: July 6, 2020 27 28