(PC)Woolery v. Magrini ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JACOB DAVID WOOLERY, No. 2:21-cv-01687-KJM-CKD 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 ERIC MAGRINI, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 6, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 22 findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] The magistrate judge found that this case presents an Eighth Amendment challenge to the 2 || alleged ongoing violations of plaintiff's right to health and safety during his confinement in 3 || administrative segregation at the Shasta County Jail. ECF No. 6 at 1-2. The magistrate judge 4 | further found that plaintiff raised the same claims against the same four defendants, albeit for an 5 | earlier time frame, in an earlier filed action, Woolery v. Magrini, et. al., Case No. 2:21-cev-1232 6 || WBS EFB, that this action was therefore duplicative of that one, and that plaintiff still had an 7 || opportunity to amend his complaint in Case No. 2:21-cv-1232 WBS EFB to add the allegations 8 | raised in the complaint filed in this action. Review of the record in Case No. 2:21-cv-1232 WBS 9 || EFB shows that plaintiff did not filed an amended complaint in that action and that it was 10 || dismissed on February 15, 2022. Woolery v. Magrini, Case No. 2:21-cv-1232 WBS EFB, ECF 11 | No. 13. The order of dismissal and judgment in that action were returned undelivered, and 12 | plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address in that action or this one. Nothing in this 13 || subsequent history changes the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings and 14 || recommendations or this court’s decision to adopt them in full. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 6, 2022, are adopted in full; and 17 2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as duplicative of Woolery v. Magrini, et al., Case No. 18 |} 2:21-cv-01232-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal.). 19 | DATED: June 21, 2022. 20 21 l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28