Coto v. Moffett et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DISMISSING Action for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted; ORDER That Dismissal is Subject to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/28/15. CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 1:13 cv 00864 LJO GSA PC

WALTER J. COTO,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 9)

vs.

D. MOFFETT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

13
14
15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
24
25

On January 8, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

26

dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff was

27

provided an opportunity to file objections within twenty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed

28

1

1
2

objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this

3

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
4
5

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 8, 2015,

8
9

are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim

10
11
12
13
14

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;
3. This dismissal is subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g); and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17

Dated:

January 28, 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Error! Main Document Only.On January 8, 2015, the Court served the findings and
recommendations on Plaintiff at California State Prison Corcoran, where Plaintiff was formerly incarcerated. (ECF
No. 9). On January 20, 2015, the findings and recommendations were returned by the U.S. Postal Service as
undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicates that Plaintiff was discharged from CDCR custody. Local Rule
183(b) requires Plaintiff to keep the Court informed of his address.
2