(PC) Bailey v. Mejia ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND BAILEY, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01631 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS CASE 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND 14 R. MEJIA, et al., (Doc. 14) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Raymond Bailey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 11, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s amended 21 complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and without 22 further leave to amend. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff filed objections on May 21, 2024. (Doc. 15.) 23 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the action. 24 Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the 25 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff 26 mistakenly asserts in his objections that the Findings and Recommendations demanded that he prove 27 his various allegations (Doc. 15); rather, the Findings and Recommendations properly explained why 28 Plaintiff has not presented factual allegations that plausibly support any of his claims. See Ashcroft v. 1 || Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 11, 2024 (Doc. 14) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and without further 5 leave to amend. 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 8 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 24, 2024 ( Li pA LU. wan 10 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28