Case Information
*1 Case 2:21-cv-01734-DAD-JDP Document 41 Filed 11/15/24 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSE LEE SHAVERS, JR., No. 2:21-cv-01734-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff,
v. ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND TABER, et al., DISMISSING CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 31)
Plaintiff Jesse Lee Shavers, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 July 25, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s operative fourth amended complaint, concluded that “plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Taber are suitable to proceed,” and issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s claims asserted against defendant D Kelsey be dismissed without further leave to amend. (Doc. No. 31 at 1, 6.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had failed to allege “how Kelsey’s unspecified conspiratorial actions led to or contributed to the confiscation of his [medical] devices” and that plaintiff had not provided any factual allegations in support of his contention that defendant Kelsey’s actions were motivated by racial animus. ( Id. at 3.)
1
*2 Case 2:21-cv-01734-DAD-JDP Document 41 Filed 11/15/24 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, the magistrate judge concluded that leave to amend was not warranted “[g]iven that this case was filed in 2021 and this is plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint.” ( Id. )
The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. ( Id. at 6.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. [1]
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 July 25, 2024 (Doc. No. 31) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s claims asserted against defendant D Kelsey are dismissed without leave to amend;
3. Defendant D Kelsey is terminated as a named defendant in this action; 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendant D Kelsey has been terminated from this action; and 5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2024
DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[1] On October 15, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time, though he did not therein specify in his motion what deadline he was seeking to extend. ( See Doc. No. 39; see also Doc. No. 40 (explaining that the motion was not filed on the docket until November 7, 2024 because plaintiff had mailed the motion to the wrong address)). The court construes plaintiff’s motion to seek an extension of time to respond to the defendant Taber’s motion to dismiss filed on September 20, 2024. ( See Doc. No. 38.) That is, the court does not understand plaintiff to be seeking an extension of time to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations, which were issued almost four months ago on July 25, 2024. ( See Doc. No. 31.) 2