(PC) Porter-Bey v. Lappin et al, No. 1:2010cv01540 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 13 Findings and Recommendations, Recommending this Action Be Dismissed, With Prejudice, For Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/8/13. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JEROME A. PORTER-BEY, 9 Plaintiff 10 11 v. HARLEY LAPPIN, et al., 12 Defendants. CASE No. 1:10-cv-01540-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 13) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Jerome A. Porter (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 2, 2013, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and gave Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 12) In the order filed on May 2, 2013, the Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the order, this action would be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. On June 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendation recommending this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff did not file any objections to the findings and recommendations. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 20, 2013, in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 4 5 upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; 3. 6 7 This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio,658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011); and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 8, 2013 SENIOR 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.
