(PC) Edwards v. Moreno

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00307
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO J. EDWARDS, No. 1:24-cv-00307-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 MORENO, et al., (Doc. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Roberto J. Edwards is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first amended 21 complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed for failure to 22 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 15. Those findings and 23 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 24 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 6. Plaintiff filed objections on 25 December 6, 2024. Doc. 16. 26 In his one-paragraph objections, plaintiff states only that he is a first-time litigator 27 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis and that he objects to the findings and recommendations 28 on the grounds that he has a claim that is not malicious or frivolous. Id. Plaintiff states that he 1 | needs more time to properly state a cognizable claim and seeks to amend the complaint and retain 2 | counsel. Id. 3 The objections do not cure the deficiencies identified by the screening order or undermine 4 | the findings and recommendations. The objections also do not provide any indication that 5 | plaintiff will be able to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim or identify any efforts he 6 | has taken to obtain counsel. See Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 394—95 (8th Cir. 1983) (leave to 7 || amend is generally inappropriate where the plaintiff has not indicated how amendment would 8 | make the complaint viable, either by submitting a proposed amendment or otherwise indicating 9 | what an amended complaint would have contained). 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 11 |) novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff's objections, the 12 | Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 13 analysis. 14 Accordingly: 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 15, 2024, Doc. 15, are 16 adopted in full; 17 2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief 18 may be granted; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 20 21 92 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ : 23 Dated: _ September 1, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28