(PC) Taylor v. Bird

Opinion

ARTHUR TAYLOR, No. 2:20-cv-2007 JAM DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action. By order signed on October 8, 2021 (ECF No. 28), the undersigned screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint, determined it failed to state a claim for relief, and informed plaintiff of its deficiencies. By the same order, the undersigned granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified therein. In the alternative, plaintiff was notified he could file a notice of voluntary dismissal or a notice of election to stand on the first amended complaint. By document received and filed on December 20, 2021 (ECF No. 32), plaintiff has indicated he wishes to stand on his first amended complaint.1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the October 8, 2021 screening order (ECF No. 28), the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

1 Although plaintiff’s December 20, 2021 filing is titled “Leave to Amend,” based on its contents and request contained therein to “stand on [the] amended complaint,” the undersigned construes the filing as a notice that plaintiff elects to stand on his first amended complaint. In accordance with the above, RECOMMENDED: 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 24) be dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 11, 2022 tay 2007-fs.stnd ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE