Jenkins et al v. Davis et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief Under Section 1983, and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment 9 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/21/14: This dismissal is subject to the "three-strikes" provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011). (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HAROLD JENKINS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
RON DAVIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

19

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01805-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 1983,
AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ENTER JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 9]

Plaintiff Harold Jenkins is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
On April 25, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screening Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for

20

failure to state a claim for relief under section 1983. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended

21

complaint within thirty days. After more than thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to comply with or

22

otherwise respond to the order, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation

23

recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. The fifteen-day

24

deadline to file an objection has passed and Plaintiff did not object or otherwise respond to the

25

Findings and Recommendations.

26

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

27

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

28

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 10, 2014, are adopted in full;

3

2.

This action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim;

4

3.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment against Plaintiff; and

5

3.

This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 21, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2