(PC) Ontiveros v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Filing
51
ORDER ADOPTING 50 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and Directing the Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge for Purpose of Closing Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/02/2021. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HERMAN RENE ONTIVEROS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION and M. PORTER,
No. 1:19-cv-01651-NONE-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING THE
CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE
(Doc. No. 50)
16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff Herman Rene Ontiveros is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on
20
plaintiff’s third amended complaint against defendants California Department of Corrections and
21
Rehabilitation and M. Porter for alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights to access the courts. This
22
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
23
Local Rule 302.
24
On January 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
25
recommending that plaintiff’s claim for violation of his First Amendment right to access the
26
courts set forth in his third amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim because he
27
failed to allege any actual injury, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order and
28
that his state-law claims be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
1
1
(Doc. No. 50.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the plaintiff and contained
2
notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at
3
9.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
5
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
6
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper
7
analysis.
8
9
10
11
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 15, 2021, (Doc. No. 50), are
adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims based upon denial of access to the courts are
12
dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a
13
court order;
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3. Plaintiff’s state-law claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction;
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge for the purpose of closing this case
and to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 2, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?