Dion Anderson v. The City, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Dismissing Action 16 ; Dismissal Counts as Strike Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Clerk to Terminate All Pending Motions and CLOSE CASE, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/19/14. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

DION ANDERSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00202-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING
ACTION
(ECF NO. 16)

THE CITY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING
MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 30, 2014, the magistrate judge

20

issued findings and recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice, that

21

dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that the clerk of the court

22

terminate any and all pending motions and close the case. (ECF No. 16, at 11:4-7.) Plaintiff

23

filed objections to the findings and recommendation on November 17, 2014.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has

25

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

26

finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper

27

analysis.

28

The objections do not raise an issue of law or fact under the findings and
1

1

recommendation and there is no need to modify the findings and recommendation based

2

on the objections. Nothing suggests Defendant Gipson was personally involved in review of

3

Plaintiff’s 602 appeal. The case law cited by Plaintiff is not authority otherwise. Plaintiff’s

4

objection that his claims were not liberally construed, that the magistrate judge incorrectly

5

screened them, and that further leave to amend should have been granted merely

6

rehashes matters previously considered by the magistrate judge and found deficient for

7

reasons stated in the findings and recommendation.

8

Plaintiff’s objection that the magistrate judge did not address his claim Defendant

9

Cavazos was deliberately indifferent to the allegedly false rules violation and criminal

10

charges arising from it similarly fails. The magistrate judge found no cognizable rights

11

violation relating to the rules violation or otherwise.

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff’s conclusory statements relating to claims not asserted in the pleading are
not a basis for objection.
Having been instructed as to pleading deficiencies and required corrections, Plaintiff
did not successfully amend. Nothing suggests further amendment would be fruitful.

16

Plaintiff’s objections lack merit.

17

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

(ECF No. 16), in full,

19
20

2.

The action is DISMISSED with prejudice and dismissal shall count as a strike
pursuant to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and

21
22

The court adopts the findings and recommendation filed on October 30, 2014

3.

The clerk of the court shall terminate all pending motions and close the case.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 19, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
2