(PC) Maestas v. C.S.A.T.F Prison ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY MAESTAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-419-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 14 C.S.A.T.F. PRISON, TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendant. (Doc. 15) 16 17 Randy Maestas seeks to hold several correctional officers liable for violations of his civil 18 rights including interference with mail, denial of toilet paper, denial of a request for correctional 19 officer’s badge and subsequent triggering of an alarm code and removal of Plaintiff from the 20 “chow hall,” and use of excessive force. (See generally Doc. 13.) 21 The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amened Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 §§ 1915 & 1915A and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 23 granted. (Doc. 15.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff should not be given further leave to 24 amend, because the Court provided the applicable legal standards and he failed to cure identified 25 pleading deficiencies. (Id. at 8.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the FAC be 26 dismissed with prejudice and the case be closed. (Id. at 9.) The Court served the Findings and 27 Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. 28 (Id.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may 1 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 2 | (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 4 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 5 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 18, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. This case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _February 22, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28