(PC) Davis v. Allison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED DAVIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00494-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL 13 v. (Doc. 22) 14 K. ALLISON, R. GODWIN, and O. ONYEJE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, which concluded that 18 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (See Doc. 19 22.) Plaintiff filed objections on November 8, 2023. (Doc. 23). 20 The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).) 21 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to 22 be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The magistrate judge correctly found that the 23 allegations in the Second Amended Complaint do not establish that any of the Defendants 24 participated in, nor even were aware of, the decisions by prison staff to remove an inmate from 25 quarantine early and place him in Plaintiff’s cell. (Doc. 22 at 6). The Objections include new 26 facts that are not included in the Second Amended Complaint as to the inmate’s treatment by 27 medical staff and placement in Plaintiff’s cell. (See Doc. 23 at 1-2). Even assuming these 28 allegations are true, they only implicate unspecified prison staff who are not named in this action, 1 | and do not set forth constitutional violations by any of the Defendants. The Objections also 2 | allege for the first time that “most” inmates placed in D yard for quarantine were taken off 3 | quarantine early “and placed against their will into inmates cell’s [sic] who have not tested 4 | possitive [sic].” (Doc. 23 at 2-3). The Court declines to consider this vague assertion, made for 5 || the first time in Plaintiff's Objections, which is unsupported by any details that would permit the 6 | Court to infer personal knowledge. Graham v. Langford, 2017 WL 3151232, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 7 | July 24, 2017) C[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence or 8 | arguments presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation.”) (citing 9 | Brown y. Roe, 279 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2002) and United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 10 | 2000)). It is not the Court’s role to request records of CDCR pertaining to Plaintiff and these 11 | other unspecified inmates to validate Plaintiffs claims, as Plaintiff directs the Court to do in his 12 | Objections. (Doc. 23 at 4). 13 In his Objections, Plaintiff also reasserts that prison officials’ failure to provide personal 14 | protective equipment and cleaning supplies violated the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 23 at 2-3). 15 | However, the magistrate judge properly found that such general allegations do not state an Eighth 16 | Amendment claim, particularly when Plaintiff does not assert any facts linking the failure to 17 || provide PPE and cleaning supplies with his purported injury. (Doc. 22 at 6-7). For these reasons, 18 || the Objections do not articulate a cognizable basis for rejecting the findings and 19 | recommendations. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed on October 13, 2023 (Doc. 22), are 21 | ADOPTED IN FULL. 22 2. The action is DISMISSED. 23 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ December 19, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28