(PC) Taylor v. Bird ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARTHUR TAYLOR, No. 2:20-cv-2007 JAM DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 LANDON BIRD, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action. By order signed on 17 October 8, 2021 (ECF No. 28), the undersigned screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint, 18 determined it failed to state a claim for relief, and informed plaintiff of its deficiencies. By the 19 same order, the undersigned granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint curing the 20 deficiencies identified therein. In the alternative, plaintiff was notified he could file a notice of 21 voluntary dismissal or a notice of election to stand on the first amended complaint. By document 22 received and filed on December 20, 2021 (ECF No. 32), plaintiff has indicated he wishes to stand 23 on his first amended complaint.1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the October 8, 2021 24 screening order (ECF No. 28), the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s first amended complaint 25 be dismissed without further leave to amend. 26 27 1 Although plaintiff’s December 20, 2021 filing is titled “Leave to Amend,” based on its contents and request contained therein to “stand on [the] amended complaint,” the undersigned construes 28 the filing as a notice that plaintiff elects to stand on his first amended complaint. 1 In accordance with the above, RECOMMENDED: 2 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 24) be dismissed without further leave to 3 | amend for failure to state a claim; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within thirty days after 7 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 8 || the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 9 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 10 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 11 1991). 12 Dated: January 11, 2022 13 14 15 tay 2007-fs.stnd ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28