-DLB (PC) Dixon v. Gonzales et al, No. 1:2009cv00172 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 36 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action With Prejudice For Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/2012. CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
-DLB (PC) Dixon v. Gonzales et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 GEMMEL DIXON, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00172-LJO-DLB PC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 11 v. 12 F. GONZALES, et al., 13 (DOC. 36) Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Gemmel Dixon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended 18 Complaint. Doc. 35. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which 21 was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 22 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff did not file an objection, but 23 instead filed a proposed Fifth Amended Complaint. Doc. 39. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court does not grant 27 Plaintiff leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint presents 28 the same allegations raised in the Fourth Amended Complaint, which fails to state a claim. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 14, 2011, is adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief 4 may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and 5 3. This dismissal is subject to the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: b9ed48 March 14, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 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.