Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06552/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06552-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACKIE RUFFIN, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6552 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS

vs. ACTION

OFFICER DUNCAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jackie Ruffin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis

in this purported civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). On November 15, 2004,

plaintiff filed his form complaint (“original complaint”) to name as defendants Kern County Sheriff’s

Department Officers P. Duncan and Kessler (collectively “defendants”). According to the original

complaint, plaintiff apparently encountered defendants who denied him medical treatment when he had

a seizure on the ground. The original complaint did not seek particular relief.

The magistrate judge issued his November 24, 2004 order to dismiss plaintiff’s original

complaint based its pleading deficiencies and failure to state a section 1983 claim. On January 28, 2005,

plaintiff filed his form amended complaint (“amended complaint”) to claim that defendant Officer P.

Duncan denied medical attentionwhich plaintiff “wanted and desperately needed for [a] seizure and later

came to find out for a spider bite.” As for relief, the amended complaint states: “I would like the court

Case 1:04-cv-06552-OWW -LJO Document 19 Filed 05/05/05 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

to win the case so I can have some money please.” The amended complaint lacks allegations regarding

defendant Officer Kessler. 

On March 9, 2005, the magistrate judge issued his findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds: (1) plaintiff has failed to file a complaint to state a cognizable

claim; and (2) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the deficiencies of the original

and amended complaints. Despite receiving extensions, plaintiff has filed no timely objections to the

findings and recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

carefully evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s March 9, 2005 findings and recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds: (1) plaintiff has failed to file a

complaint to state a cognizable claim; and (2) a further attempt at amendment is

unwarranted based on the deficiencies of the original and amended complaints; and 

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06552-OWW -LJO Document 19 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 2