McLaughlin v. Diaz et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations of Dismissal Without Leave to Amend for Failure/Inability to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/4/15. CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MARTIN McLAUGHLIN,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
DIAZ, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:14-cv-00784-AWI-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR
FAILURE/INABILITY TO STATE A CLAIM
(Docs. 15, 17)

Defendants.

STRIKE PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

14
15
Plaintiff, Martin McLaughlin, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of

16
17

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff filed his

20

Second Amended Complaint on February 9, 2015, alleging a violation of his rights under the

21

Eighth Amendment based on his conditions of confinement and to substantive and procedural due

22

process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 16.) On April 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge

23

screened it and recommended dismissal without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Doc.

24

17.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on May 15, 2015. (Doc. 18.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

25
26

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

27

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

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on April 16, 2015 (Doc. 17), is adopted in

3

full;

4

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim;

5

3. Plaintiff's motion to release certain named Defendants, filed February 9, 2015 (Doc.

6

15) is disregarded as moot;

7

4. Dismissal of this action counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

8

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: June 4, 2015

12

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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