(PC) Miller v. Kings County ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEORGIO MILLER, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0668 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO ) STATE A CLAIM, AND DIRECTING THE 14 KINGS COUNTY, ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 11) ) 16 17 Jeorgio Miller seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while housed 18 at Kings County Jail. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 20 granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 8.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, after which he 21 declined the opportunity and chose to “stand on [his] claims.” (Doc. 9 at 1.) 22 After Plaintiff elected to not file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge reiterated the 23 findings made in the initial screening order. (Doc. 11.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found 24 Plaintiff failed to allege acts supporting a conclusion that deputies at Kings County Jail acted with 25 deliberate indifference. (Id. at 4-6.) In addition, the magistrate judge found the claim against Kings 26 County Jail itself was “subject to dismissal,” because it is an entity of Kings County and Plaintiff failed 27 to allege facts supporting a conclusion that “its specific policies and practices were the moving forces 28 behind the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 1 || recommended Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed “for failure to state a claim,” and the action be close 2 || Ud. at 6.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 4 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 11 at 6-7.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 7, citing 6 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 7 || time to do so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 9 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 10 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 30, 2024 (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED in 12 full. 13 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 15 16 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: _ September 16, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28