Lee v. Harrington

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting 12 Findings and Recommendations Dismissing Action with Prejudice, For Failure to State A Claim, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/13/11. Clerk to Close Case. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

JERMAINE LEE,

7

1:09-cv-01559-LJO-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RE COMMENDAT I O NS DIS MI S S I NG
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM

Defendant.

(ECF No. 12)

v.

8
9

CASE NO.

K. HARRINGTON,

10
11

/ CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

12
13
14
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff Jermaine Lee (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate, is proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

18

to a United State Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

19

302.

20
This action was filed on September 3, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s original
21
22

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on January 6, 2011. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff

23

was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and was warned that failure to do so

24

would result in dismissal of this action. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file anything.

25

On February 25, 2011, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of action for

26

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 12.) The Magistrate

27
1

1

Judge warned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply, this action would be dismissed. Plaintiff

2

was given thirty days to file an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. Well over

3

thirty days passed and, to date, Plaintiff has failed to file an objection or otherwise respond.

4
5
6

As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may
be granted.

7

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local rule 305,

8

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

9

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the

10

record and by proper analysis. Because Plaintiff never filed an amended complaint, this

11
12

action is subject to dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, as set forth in the Court’s

13

January 6, 2011 Order, and also subject to dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

14

that same Order.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 25, 2011, is ADOPTED;

2.

The instant action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a

17
18

claim and failure to comply with a Court Order;
19
3.

21

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case; and

4.

20

This case shall count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
b9ed48

24

May 13, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
2