Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01082/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01082-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roland Thomas Koch
Plaintiff
Brandon Price
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND THOMAS KOCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRANDON PRICE, Coalinga State 

Hospital Administrator

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01082-DAD-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

CASE

(Doc. No. 6)

Plaintiff Roland Thomas Koch is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 3, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and issued 

findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed as duplicative of 

Koch v. Price, et al., No. 1:18-cv-01693-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.) [hereinafter Koch I], a previously 

filed civil action in this court. (Doc. No. 6). The findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days. (Id.) 

Plaintiff timely filed objections on December 13, 2019. (Doc. No. 8.) In those objections, 

plaintiff fails to dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that this action is duplicative of Koch I, 

Case 1:19-cv-01082-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/28/20 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

which was dismissed with prejudice by this court for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

(See Koch I, Doc. No. 23).

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

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

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

by proper analysis. 

Accordingly: 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 6) are

adopted;

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice due to it being duplicative of an action

already dismissed by this court with prejudice; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief (Doc. No. 7) is denied as moot; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01082-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2