(PC) Whang v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al, No. 1:2012cv01425 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER Dismissing Action for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief may be Granted under Section 1983; ORDER that Dismissal is Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); ORDER Directing Clerk to Close Case signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/29/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Whang v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JIN YEONG WHANG, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SIX UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS, ) ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:12-cv-1425 AWI GSA PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 5) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983 15 ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. 22 On October 19, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 23 dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff was 24 provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed 25 objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.1 26 27 28 1 On October 19, 2012, the Court served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff at California State Prison Corcoran, where Plaintiff was formerly incarcerated. (ECF No. 14). On October 25, 2012, the findings and recommendations were returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicates Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 5 6 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 19, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2012, are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 3. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 0m8i78 November 29, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that Plaintiff refused delivery. 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.
