The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-00699-TLN-KJN
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 R. PLESHCHUK, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Ronnie Cherokee Brown (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has
18 filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On March 17, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were
21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and
22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 20.) On March 26, 2020,
23 Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 21.)
24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which
25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As
27 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court
28 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United
1 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
2 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
3 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court
4 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate
5 judge’s analysis.
6 In his Objections, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to again amend his pleading to state
7 a retaliation claim against Defendants, and also objects that his due process claims should not be
8 dismissed. (ECF No. 21 at 2.) However, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is untimely
9 because his retaliation claims were first dismissed on June 11, 2019. (See ECF No. 7.) Further,
10 Plaintiff failed to provide a proposed amended complaint that demonstrates he is able to state
11 cognizable retaliation or due process claims against defendants. As a prisoner, Plaintiff’s
12 pleadings are subject to evaluation by this Court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28
13 U.S.C. § 1915A. Since Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the Court is
14 unable to evaluate it.1 Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 17, 2020 (ECF No. 20), are adopted
17 in full;
18 2. Plaintiff’s retaliation and due process claims (ECF No. 1) are DISMISSED, without
19 prejudice; and
20 3. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Dr.
21 Pleschuk and Dr. Valencia (ECF No. 1).
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23 DATED: April 7, 2020
24
25
26
27 1 The Court notes that, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Plaintiff may file a
motion to amend accompanied by his proposed amended complaint in compliance with Federal
28 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).