(PC) East v. Kabonic et al, No. 1:2010cv01053 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Dismissal Counts as Strike Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 07/29/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) East v. Kabonic et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EBONE LEROY EAST, 9 10 11 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01053-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC. 12) v. G. KABONIC, et al., 12 DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Ebone Leroy East (“plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 11, 2010. Doc. 17 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 18 and Local Rule 302. 19 On April 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 20 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 21 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Doc. 12. Plaintiff filed an Objection to 22 the Findings and Recommendations on April 22, 2011. Doc. 13. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 24 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 25 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 7, 2011, is adopted in full; 28 2. This action is dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 be granted; 2 3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot; and 3 4. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 July 29, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 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.