Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00076/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00076-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Black
Defendant
Boatwright
Defendant
Bobbala
Defendant
Tory Bratton
Plaintiff
Castillo
Defendant
Rowland
Defendant
Sanchez
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

TORY BRATTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CASTILLO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-00076-KJM-DMC-P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge as provided by Eastern 

District of California local rules. 

 On June 13, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on the parties and contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time 

specified therein. Plaintiff filed a notice in response. Notice, ECF No. 35. In the notice, plaintiff 

states plaintiff will follow the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismiss the claims against 

defendant Bobbala. Id. at 2. The court construes plaintiff’s filing as a non-opposition to the 

findings and recommendations. This court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations, but plaintiff need not take any action at this time. 

 The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 

481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are 

Case 2:21-cv-00076-DC-DMC Document 36 Filed 08/18/23 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 

reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the 

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 

proper analysis overall. However, the court declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation to dismiss without prejudice plaintiff’s American Disabilities Act claim. The 

Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to “grant leave to amend even if no request to amend 

the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 

allegation of other facts.“ Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (quoting 

Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.1995)). Because plaintiff could plausibly amend 

the complaint to state a claim against defendant, leave to amend is granted with respect to all 

claims. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2023, are adopted in part; 

2. Defendant Bobbala’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 27, is granted; 

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Bobbala are dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to state a claim; 

4. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this 

order; 

5. If plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint, the action shall proceed on the 

original complaint against the answering defendants (Black, Rowland, Staggs-Boatwright, 

Sanchez, and Castillo) only; and 

6. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings, including referral to ADR if appropriate. 

DATED: August 18, 2023. 

Case 2:21-cv-00076-DC-DMC Document 36 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 2