Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00240/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00240-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE CARLTON BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WINN-REED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00240-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff Eugene Carlton Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 July 17, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. 

(ECF No. 11.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 

7.) Plaintiff filed objections on August 9, 2019. (ECF No. 12.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are unpersuasive. As discussed in the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, despite Plaintiff’s allegations that his 

magazine subscriptions have been wrongfully confiscated, Plaintiff then alleges that the 

publications were ultimately placed on the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications in 

Case 1:19-cv-00240-LJO-BAM Document 15 Filed 01/24/20 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

compliance with CDCR regulations. To the extent Plaintiff is challenging the placement of the 

publications on the Centralized List, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the regulation is not 

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–90 

(1987). 

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 17, 2019, (ECF No. 11), are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; 

and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00240-LJO-BAM Document 15 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 2