(PC) Favor-El v. Rome, et al., No. 1:2015cv01865 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Action, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim; ORDER that DISMISSAL is Subject to 28:1915(g); ORDER DENYING Miscellaneous Requests for Relief 27 and [32}; ORDER for Clerk to Close Case, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/22/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRANDON FAVOR-EL, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. MYCHELLE ROME, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NO. 25) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 16 ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS FOR RELIEF (ECF NOS. 27 & 32) 17 18 ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 19 20 21 Brandon Favor-El (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds 23 on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on April 1, 2016. (ECF No. 9). The matter was 24 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 25 Rule 302. 26 On August 19, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 27 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to 28 1 1 state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, and that this dismissal be subject 2 to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was 3 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty 4 days. On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations 5 (ECF No. 27), as well as a request for a forty day extension to file objections to the findings 6 and recommendations (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff’s request for a forty day extension was granted 7 (ECF No. 28), but the forty day extension has expired and Plaintiff did not file any additional 8 objections. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 10 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 11 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 12 analysis. 13 Plaintiff’s objections are largely incoherent, and do not raise any relevant arguments. 14 As Plaintiff’s case is being dismissed, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for bail, 15 bond, or own recognizance relief, request to subpoena a witness, request for an “arrest warrant 16 information,” request for a review of evidence, and request for a police interview, all of which 17 are included in his objections. The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for release from 18 custody and request for a mental health evaluation. (ECF No. 32). 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 21 22 23 24 25 August 19, 2016, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 3. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in § 1915(g). Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015); 26 4. Plaintiff’s request for bail, bond, or own recognizance relief, request to subpoena a 27 witness, request for an “arrest warrant information,” request for a review of 28 evidence, and request for a police interview are DENIED; 2 1 5. Plaintiff’s request for release from custody and request for a mental health 2 3 evaluation are DENIED; and 6. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ November 22, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.