(PC) Cagan v. Lake et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/6/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAXCIME CAGAN,

12

Plaintiff,

(ECF No. 7)

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF
MAY BE GRANTED

Defendants.

13

S. LAKE, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:19-cv-01629-AWI-SAB (PC)

16
17

Plaintiff Maxcime Cagan is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

19

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

20

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

21

On December 13, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and

22

recommendation, recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state

23

a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 7.) The findings and

24

recommendation were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to

25

be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 8.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff

26

filed objections to the findings and recommendation on January 16, 2020. (ECF No. 10.)

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
1

1

objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation are

2

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5
6

are adopted in full;
2.

7
8

The findings and recommendations issued on December 13, 2019, (ECF No. 7),

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; and

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2021
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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