Grandison v. M. Stainer et al

Filing 25

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice For Failure To State A Claim (ECF No. 23 ), Clerk To Close Case, Dismissal As Strike Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/9/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Strike)(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JEFFERY SEBASTIAN GRANDISON,

CASE No.

11

13

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL
OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Plaintiff,

12
v.

14
15
16

(ECF No. 23)
M. STAINER, et al.,
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
Defendants.

DISMISSAL AS STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g)

17
18

1:11-cv-01506-LJO-MJS (PC)

/

19
20
21
22
23

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff Jeffery Sebastian Grandison, a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

24
§ 1983. (ECF No. 4.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant
25
26

to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the

27
-1-

1 Eastern District of California.
2
3

On July 31, 2012, Findings and Recommendations for dismissal (ECF No. 23) were
filed in which the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the action with prejudice for

4
5
6

failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was notified that his objection, if any, was due within thirty
days. On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

7 (ECF No. 24).
8

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has

9 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
10

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by

11
12
13

proper analysis. Plaintiff’s Objections assert a due process deprivation based upon a
liberty interest in avoiding the “R” suffix, a lack of factual support for imposition of the “R”

14 suffix, and suggest an Eighth Amendment claim relating to excessive force. The
15 Objections raise no material issue of law or fact under the Findings and
16 Recommendations. Plaintiff has no cognizable liberty interest in avoiding mere
17

application of the “R” suffix to his custody classification. He points to no denial of

18
process that was due at the ICC hearing imposing the “R” suffix. His reference to the
19
20

Eighth Amendment has no basis in the First Amended Complaint and Findings and

21 Recommendations thereon, and is not a cognizable claim.
22 ///////
23 ///////
24

///////

25
///////
26
27

///////
-2-

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3
4

The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed July 31, 2012,
in full,

2.

This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim,

3.

The Clerk of the Court shall close the case, and

4.

This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

5
6
7
8
9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11

Dated:
12 b9ed48

September 9, 2012

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

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-