Stewart v. Tilton et al
Filing
22
ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel, DISMISSING Action With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983 Against Defendants Tilton, Sullivan, and Allision, and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/2011. ORDER Counting Dismissal as a STRIKE Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(G). CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
CHARLES STEWART,
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00985-AWI-SKO PC
9
Plaintiff,
ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (2) DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, (3) DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983 AGAINST
DEFENDANTS TILTON, SULLIVAN, AND
ALLISION, AND (4) DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT
10
v.
11
J. TILTON, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
(Docs. 17, 18, 19, and 20)
15
ORDER COUNTING DISMISSAL AS A
STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)
16
/
17
18
Plaintiff Charles Stewart, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
19
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 3, 2010. The matter was referred to a United
20
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On October 17, 2011, a Findings and Recommendations was filed in which the Magistrate
22
Judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaints and recommended dismissal of the action for failure
23
to state a claim.1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The thirty-day objection period has expired and Plaintiff did
24
not file an objection.
25
///
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff filed three documents on August 3, 2011, August 15, 2011, and August 22, 2011. In light of
Plaintiff’s pro se status and the contents of the filings, the Magistrate Judge found that it was in the interest of justice
to make an exception and view the filings of August 3 and August 22 together as the amended complaint, with the
filing of August 15 treated as a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de
2
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and
3
Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
6
The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on October 17, 2011, in
full;
7
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied;
8
3.
This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section
9
1983 against Defendants Tilton, Sullivan, and Allison;
10
4.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against Plaintiff; and
11
5.
This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated:
0m8i78
December 23, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?