(PC) Maeshack v. Avenal State Prison, et al, No. 1:2006cv00011 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations 59 ; ORDER GRANTING Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Based on Res Judicata 38 ; ORDER DISMISSING Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre From This Action, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/9/10. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Maeshack v. Avenal State Prison, et al Doc. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT MAESHACK, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al., 14 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 58.) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HARBINSON AND MCINTYRE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, BASED ON RES JUDICATA (Doc. 38.) 15 ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS HARBINSON AND MCINTYRE FROM THIS ACTION 16 Defendants. 17 _____________________________/ 18 Robert Maeshack (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 21 On January 25, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 22 that Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre’s motion to dismiss of May 6, 2009 be granted, and 23 Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a 24 claim against him, based on the doctrine of res judicata. On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed 25 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 61.) 26 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73- 2 305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. While the court is not without sympathy to Plaintiff’s medical problems, the court cannot 5 revisit allegations that have already been fully adjudicated in another action. 6 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 7 1. 8 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 25, 2010, are adopted in full; 9 2. 10 Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre’s motion to dismiss, filed May 6, 2009, is GRANTED; 11 3. Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre are dismissed from this action for 12 Plaintiff's failure to state any claim against them, based on the doctrine of res 13 judicata; and 14 4. 15 The Clerk of the Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre from this action on the court's docket. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 0m8i78 March 9, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
