Stamps v. California Department of Corrections et al
Filing
11
ORDER DISMISSING Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/18/14: The Clerk is directed to close this case. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
PHIL STAMPS,
Case No.1:13 cv 01181 GSA PC
11
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
vs.
13
JEFFREY BEARD, ET AL.,
14
Defendant
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1).1
By order filed July 10, 2014, the operative complaint was dismissed for failure to state a
claim. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint, and directed to do so within
thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
In the July 10, 2014, order the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his
complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim
24
upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the
25
26
27
1
28
Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on August 5, 2013 (ECF No. 5).
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Court dismisses the claims made in the original complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
federal claim upon which the court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448
(9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to
dismissing for failure to state a claim).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10
/s/ Gary S. Austin
11
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
August 18, 2014
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?