(PC) Bennett v. Monroe Detention Center

Opinion

DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:22-cv-2157-DJC-SCR P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MONROE DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 May 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty- one days. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Although Petitioner has filed an appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 82), that does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to review the Findings and Recommendations. See e.g., Poye v. Parker, No. 1:08-cv- 00497-OWW-SMS, 2008 WL 4532515, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008). “Where the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness, lack of essential recitals, or reference to a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it may disregard the purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction.” Ruby v. Secretary of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966). A Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are not a final judgement without subsequent intervention by the district court and the notice of appeal after before the Findings and Recommendations are adopted is premature. Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1993). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 79) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 57) is dismissed without further leave to amend for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 3. All of plaintiff's pending motions (ECF Nos. 58, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73) are denied as moot in light of the dismissal of this action; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _June 13, 2025 Donel J □□ bratte— Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE benn2157.805