Aguilar v. Holland et al

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Action (Strike), with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief may be Granted Under Section 1983; ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); ORDER for Clerk to CLOSE CASE signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/16/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BENITO AGUILAR,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

KIM HOLLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:16-cv-00114-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 13.)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY
BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

17

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

18

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Benito Aguilar (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

22

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff

23

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United

24

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

25

On December 29, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

26

that this action be dismissed based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may

27

be granted under §1983. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file

28

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The thirty day time period has passed,
1

1

and Plaintiff has not filed objections or any other response to the findings and

2

recommendations. (Court Record.)

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

4

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

5

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

8

1.

9
10

December 29, 2016, are adopted in full;
2.

11
12

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff=s failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;

3.

13
14

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

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

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

February 16, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2