Filed: Feb. 25, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 39) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Calvin Holt is appearing pro se 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 January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending the action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for r
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 39) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Calvin Holt is appearing pro se 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 January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending the action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for re..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
(Doc. No. 39)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Calvin Holt is appearing pro se 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 January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending the action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 39.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within twenty-one (21) days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on February 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 41.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis. The findings and recommendations correctly conclude that all of plaintiffs' claims, which concern various instances in which plaintiff alleges his mail (possibly including some legal mail) was improperly handled, fail to plausibly allege constitutional violations.
In his objections, plaintiff argues, inter alia, that his state law claims were not analyzed and/or considered. (Id.) However, plaintiff is advised that although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, plaintiff must first state at least one claim over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction, such as a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. As stated in the findings and recommendations, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. Therefore, there is no reason to screen any purported state law claim(s).
Accordingly,
1. The January 10, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 36) are adopted in full; and
2. Because plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standards and the deficiencies in his pleadings, the instant action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief without prejudice to plaintiff pursuing his state law claims in an action filed in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
