-SKO (PC) Stewart v. Tilton et al, No. 1:2010cv00985 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel, DISMISSING Action With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983 Against Defendants Tilton, Sullivan, and Allision, and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/2011. ORDER Counting Dismissal as a STRIKE Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(G). CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
-SKO (PC) Stewart v. Tilton et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 CHARLES STEWART, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00985-AWI-SKO PC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, (3) DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANTS TILTON, SULLIVAN, AND ALLISION, AND (4) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 10 v. 11 J. TILTON, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 (Docs. 17, 18, 19, and 20) 15 ORDER COUNTING DISMISSAL AS A STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff Charles Stewart, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 3, 2010. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 17, 2011, a Findings and Recommendations was filed in which the Magistrate 22 Judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaints and recommended dismissal of the action for failure 23 to state a claim.1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The thirty-day objection period has expired and Plaintiff did 24 not file an objection. 25 /// 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed three documents on August 3, 2011, August 15, 2011, and August 22, 2011. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the contents of the filings, the Magistrate Judge found that it was in the interest of justice to make an exception and view the filings of August 3 and August 22 together as the amended complaint, with the filing of August 15 treated as a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 3 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on October 17, 2011, in full; 7 2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied; 8 3. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 9 1983 against Defendants Tilton, Sullivan, and Allison; 10 4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against Plaintiff; and 11 5. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 0m8i78 December 23, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2