(PC)Wilkerson v. Harrington et al, No. 1:2010cv00724 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Action For Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to State a Claim; Dismissal Counts as STRIKE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(G), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/27/2011. CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Wilkerson v. Harrington et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SAUNDRO WILKERSON, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00724-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC. 8) v. K. HARRINGTON, et al., Defendants. 15 DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) / 16 17 Plaintiff Saundro Wilkerson (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his 19 complaint on April 26, 2010. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 22 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 23 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection 24 to the Findings and Recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 27 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 22, 2011, is adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim 4 5 upon which relief may be granted; and 3. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 May 27, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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.
