Woods v. Harrington et al
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief can be Granted signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/15/2010. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
(PC) Woods v. Harrington, et al.
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 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). By order filed November 4, 2010, the operative complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint, and directed to do so within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. In the November 4, 2010, order the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the Court dismisses the claims made in the original complaint without prejudice for failure to state a federal claim upon which the court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to STEVEN JEREMY WOODS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KELLY HARRINGTON, M.D., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:09-cv-02007-GSA-PC ORDER DISMISSING ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
dismissing for failure to state a claim). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij
December 15, 2010
/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?