(PC) Ross v. Adams et al, No. 1:2010cv02075 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/25/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Ross v. Adams et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ALVIN R. ROSS, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02075-AWI-GBC PC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 v. 12 DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., 13 (Docs. 9, 10, 11) Defendant. 14 15 / 16 Plaintiff Alvin R. Ross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 9, 2010. (Doc. 1. ) The matter was referred to a United 18 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 and on December 19 13, 2010, an order was issued dismissing the action due to his being denied in forma pauperis status 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on December 21 27, 2010. (Doc. 9.) On December 30, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending the motion for reconsideration be denied. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff was 23 given fifteen days within which to file objections, and an objection was filed on January 13, 2011. 24 (Doc. 11.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 27 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court has 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 considered Plaintiff’s objections. Based on the evidence before the court, the court finds that 2 Plaintiff has three strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. 5 6 The findings and recommendations, filed December 30, 2010, are adopted in full; and 2. The motion for reconsideration, filed December 27, 2010, is denied. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: 0m8i78 January 25, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES 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.