Tunstall v. Veal et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING 60 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 04/02/09. This action is DISMISSED for plaintiff's failure to state a claim. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Although plaintiff has filed three documents since the issuance of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, none of them are responsive. The court has reviewed plaintiff's second amended complaint filed April 30, 2008, and finds that it fails to cure any of the deficiencies found by the magistrate judge in either the August 29, 2007 or the April 10, 2008 findings and recommendations.
1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT TUNSTALL, Plaintiff, vs. M. VEAL, Warden, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. On April 10, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 ORDER No. CIV S-06-0727 LKK EFB P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 10, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed for plaintiff's failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a claim). DATED: April 2, 2009.

2