Antonio v. Garza

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL 9 & 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; This action is dismissed for failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute, andfailure to state a claim; Dismissal counts as a strike; The clerk is directed to close this action, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/26/2010. ORDER DISMISSING CASE (Strike). CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

(PC) Candelario v. Garza

Doc. 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ANTONIO CANDELARIO, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 GARZA, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Antonio Candelario ("Plaintiff") is formerly a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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. Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 29, 2009. On September 29, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that it failed to state any claims. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff did not update the Court as to his current address. On December 29, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation recommending dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court of a change of address, and the Magistrate Judge's December 29, 2009 Findings and Recommendation was re-served on Plaintiff. Plaintiff still failed to respond. On August 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a 1
Dockets.Justia.com

U N IT ED ST A T ES D IS T R IC T COU R T
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00762-LJO-DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOCS. 9, 11) DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

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

claim. Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations, and failed to update this Court as to his current address. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. 3. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 4, 2010, is adopted in full; The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 29, 2009, is adopted in full; This action is dismissed for failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a claim; and 4. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The clerk is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 66h44d October 26, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2