Porter-Bey v. Lappin et al
Filing
14
ORDER Adopting 13 Findings and Recommendations, Recommending this Action Be Dismissed, With Prejudice, For Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/8/13. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
JEROME A. PORTER-BEY,
9
Plaintiff
10
11
v.
HARLEY LAPPIN, et al.,
12
Defendants.
CASE No. 1:10-cv-01540-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 13)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Jerome A. Porter (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil
rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. The
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302.
On May 2, 2013, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and
gave Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 12) In the order filed on May 2, 2013,
the Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the
order, this action would be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims. Plaintiff did
not file an amended complaint. On June 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and
recommendation recommending this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a
claim. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff did not file any objections to the findings and recommendations.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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.
1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 20, 2013, in full;
3
2.
This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim
4
5
upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;
3.
6
7
This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio,658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011); and
4.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
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?