Lopez-Valle v. California City Correctional Facility

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations 13 ; 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:U.S.C. 1915(g) (Strike), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 06/24/2015. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO LOPEZ-VALLE,

12
13
14
15

1:13-cv-00338-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 13.)

vs.

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

CALIF. CITY CORR. FAC.,
Defendant.

16
17

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

18

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

19
20
21
22

Antonio Lopez-Valle (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

23

rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter

24

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

25

Local Rule 302.

26

On April 24, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

27

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

28

granted under §1983.

(Doc. 13.)

Plaintiff was permitted twenty days in which to file
1

1

objections to the findings and recommendations. The twenty-day time period has expired, and

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

8

1.

9
10

2015, are adopted in full;
2.

11
12

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

3.

13
14

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 24,

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.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The United States Postal Service returned the order on May 12, 2015 as undeliverable. A notation on
the envelope indicates “undeliverable, RTS.” However, Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his
address. Absent such notice, service at a party=s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).
2