Haley v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 19

ORDER Adopting 16 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Dismissing Action, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted Under Section 1983; ORDER That Dismissal is Subject to 28 USC 1915(g); ORDER for Clerk to Close Case, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/1/15. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONOVAN L. HALEY,

12
13
14
15
16

1:13-cv-00226-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 16.)

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY
BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

Defendants.

17

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT
TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g)

18

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

19
20

Donovan L. Haley (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

22

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

On April 7, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this

24

action be dismissed based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

25

granted under §1983. Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file objections to the

26

findings and recommendations. Plaintiff requested and was granted a thirty-day extension of

27

time to file objections. (Docs. 17, 18.) Plaintiff’s latest deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff

28

has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

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

3

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

4

supported by the record and proper analysis.

5

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

6

1.

7
8

2015, are adopted in full;
2.

9
10

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff=s failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;

3.

11
12

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 7,

This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); and

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2