(PC) Williams v. CDCR Department Corrections and Rehabilitations et al, No. 1:2014cv01912 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER, TO PROSECUTE, AND TO STATE A CLAIM 28 , 29 ; STRIKE PER 425 U.S.C. § 1915(g) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/1/2016. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VINCE WILLIAMS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 v. CDCR DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, et al., Defendants. 14 No. 1:14-cv-01912-LJO-JLT (PC) ORDERADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER, TO PROSECUTE, AND TO STATE A CLAIM (Docs. 28, 29) STRIKE PER 425 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 15 16 Plaintiff, Vince Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 22, 2014. The matter was referred to 18 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On 19 January 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendation that this action be 20 dismissed with prejudice because of Plaintiff’s failure both to obey a court order and to prosecute 21 this action and that Plaintiff be given a strike under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(g) since he failed to state a 22 cognizable claim. (Doc. 29.) The findings and recommendations issued that same date and gave 23 plaintiff thirty days to file objections. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file any objections. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 26 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 /// 28 // 1 1 Accordingly: 2 1. the Findings and Recommendations, issued on January 12, 2016 (Doc. 29), is adopted 3 4 in full; 2. this action is dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, failure to 5 obey a court order, and failure to prosecute this action; 6 3. dismissal of this action counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and 7 4. the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill March 1, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.