(PC) Avery v. Director of CDCR, et al., No. 1:2007cv01175 - Document 68 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS That This Action be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could be Granted; Objections due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/14/2010. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 8/16/2010. (Bradley, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Avery v. Director of CDCR, et al. Doc. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SHANNON LEWIS AVERY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:07-cv-01175-OWW-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter 18 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 19 Rule 302. 20 By order filed April 20, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing the operative 21 complaint for failure to state a claim and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 22 thirty days. On June 7, 2010, Plaintiff was granted a thirty day extension of time in which to file 23 an amended complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 24 In the April 20, 2010 order, the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his 25 complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim 26 upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the 27 Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. See 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing longstanding rule that leave to 2 amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made unless the court determines that 3 the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts); Noll v. Carlson, 809 4 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her 5 complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 6 amendment). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal with 7 prejudice upheld where court had instructed plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order 8 dismissing claim with leave to amend). 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within 13 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 14 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 16 objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See 17 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the 18 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 19 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 6i0kij July 14, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.