Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01258/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01258-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE ALEXANDER FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DUDLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-01258-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 12)

Plaintiff Kyle Alexander Freeman is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On June 25, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge dismissed the operative complaint and 

granted plaintiff leave to amend within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. 

(Doc. No. 8.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff has not made specific factual 

allegations regarding the actions of defendants Singh, Rivera, Moreno, Hernandez, Alvares, or 

Chao, and therefore fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against those defendants. (Id. at 4.) 

The magistrate judge further found that plaintiff has not stated a claim for excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Dudley and Tardd because plaintiff does 

not allege what specific, individual conduct defendants Dudley and Tardd participated in which 

Case 2:24-cv-01258-DAD-AC Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

constituted the excessive use of force. (Id.) The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff does 

not state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment because plaintiff does not allege what serious medical need he has or what harm that 

need could have caused him. (Id. at 5.) On August 13, 2024, the magistrate judge found that 

plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint and ordered that plaintiff file an amended complaint 

within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of that order. (Doc. No. 11.) To date, 

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Accordingly, on September 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety for failure 

to state a claim and failure to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 12 at 1.) The pending findings 

and recommendations were served upon plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service. (Id. at 2.) To date, plaintiff has 

not filed any objections to those findings and recommendations and the time in which to do so has 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 23, 2024 (Doc. No. 12) 

are adopted in full;

2. The operative complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without further leave to amend; 

and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01258-DAD-AC Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 2