(PC) Woods v. Kirsch

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 LYNN WOODS, No. 2:22-cv-00640-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANT SMITH’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM BROUGHT 14 CHRISTOPHER SMITH, et al., AGAINST HIM 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 28, 39) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Lynn Woods is a state prisoner proceedings pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that defendant Christopher Smith’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 23 claim brought against him (Doc. No. 28) be granted. (Doc. No. 39.) Specifically, the magistrate 24 judge concluded that, while plaintiff’s claim brought against defendant Smith was not time- 25 barred, plaintiff had failed to sufficiently allege that defendant Smith either directly participated 26 in the alleged constitutional violations or had actual knowledge of the alleged violations and 27 failed to prevent them. (Id. at 3–7.) The magistrate judge also concluded that leave to amend 28 would be futile given that plaintiff had been unable to adequately plead a claim against defendant 1 | Smith despite filing multiple amended complaints. (/d. at 7-8.) 2 Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 3 | any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud. at 9.) No 4 | party filed any objections to the pending findings and recommendations, and the time to do so has 5 || passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 7 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 8 || court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 9 | analysis.! 10 Accordingly: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 39) are 12 adopted; 13 2. Defendant Christopher Smith’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim brought against 14 him (Doc. No. 28) is granted; 15 3. Plaintiff's claim brought against defendant Smith is dismissed without further 16 leave to amend; 17 4. Defendant Christopher Smith is dismissed from this action; 18 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendant 19 Christopher Smith has been terminated as a named defendant in this action; and 20 6. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 21 proceedings. | Dated: _March 25, 2024 Da A. 2, axel 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 | The court does decline to adopt the sentence in the pending findings and recommendations 27 | which attributes a quotation to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014). (See Doc. No. 39 at 7.) The court has not located the quoted language in the 28 | cited decision.