midpage

(PC) Bennett v. Atascadero State Hospital(PC) Bennett v. Atascadero State Hospital

District Court, E.D. California
Aug 31, 2026
2:25-cv-03738

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. No. 3)

Plaintiff is a county jail prisoner proceeding pro se in this action in which he seeks declaratory relief against defendant Atascadero State Hospital under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 31, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be summarily dismissed due to plaintiff‘s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 3.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that Atascadero State Hospital is a state entity and therefore not subject to the FOIA so that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Id. at 2.) In addition, the magistrate judge found that granting leave to amend would be futile in light of the nature of the claim brought by plaintiff. (Id.)

/////

/////

The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail to his address of record1 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has long since passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

  1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 31, 2025 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full;
  2. This action is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend; and
  3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2026

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notes

1
As noted, the December 31, 2025 findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff by mail at his then address of record at the Butte County Jail. On January 12, 2026, that mail was returned to the court as “undeliverable, not in custody.” On January 22, 2026, the court updated plaintiff‘s address to Atascadero State Hospital based upon a notice of change of address plaintiff had filed in another case he had pending before this court and then re-served the findings and recommendations to that new address on February 3 and February 5, 2026. Those mailings were not returned to the court by the postal service. It appears from another notice of change of address, filed by plaintiff in another pending case, that he may have been returned to the Butte County Jail in June of 2026. In any event, plaintiff has never filed a notice of change of address in this case as required, nor has he filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations or otherwise communicated with the court since January 8, 2026. (See Doc. No. 4.)

Case Details

Case Name: (PC) Bennett v. Atascadero State Hospital
Court Name: District Court, E.D. California
Date Published: Aug 31, 2026
Citation: 2:25-cv-03738
Docket Number: 2:25-cv-03738
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Cal.
Log In