(PC)Gross et al v. Hartley et al, No. 1:2012cv00780 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983 ; re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint ; referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/4/13. Objections to F&R due by 12/9/2013(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES GROSS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. JAMES D. HARTLEY, et. al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-00780-LJO-SAB (HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 16] Plaintiff James Gross is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 20, 2013, the undersigned dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a 20 claim upon which relief may be granted and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). To date, Plaintiff has not complied with or 22 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any 23 claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 24 Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the undersigned 25 HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure 26 to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 27 28 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) days 1 1 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 2 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 3 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 4 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: November 4, 2013 _ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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.