Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00147/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00147-3/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 - 07cv0147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD DWAYNE ASHFORD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07 CV 0147 JM (WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

Doc. Nos. 25 and 35

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of California

Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, et al.,

Defendants.

Edward Dwayne Ashford (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his constitutional rights.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2008. (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff submitted an

opposition brief on June 24, 2008 (Doc. No. 31) and Defendants subsequently filed a reply (Doc. No.

34).

On August 12, 2008, Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No.

35.) Petitioner filed his objections on October 6, 2008. (Doc. No. 40.) Defendants submitted a timely

reply. (Doc. No. 41.)

Having carefully considered the thorough and thoughtful R&R, the record before the court,

Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, and the applicable authorities, the court wholly adopts the R&R.

(Doc. No. 35.) In particular, the court notes although Plaintiff’s substantive allegations are predicated

Case 3:07-cv-00147-JM-WMC Document 42 Filed 12/02/08 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 - 07cv0147

on events said to occur on December 19, 2006, Plaintiff acknowledges he has failed to exhaust

administrative remedies with respect to alleged events on that date. (Complaint at 7:1-2; Plaintiff’s

Opp. Brief 7:1-13.)

Accordingly, the court:

1) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s federal claims under § 1983;

2) Declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims; and

3) GRANTS Defendants’ request for judicial notice. (Doc. No. 25.)

For the reasons set forth above, the action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The

Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 2, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00147-JM-WMC Document 42 Filed 12/02/08 Page 2 of 2