(PC) Huerta v. Biter et al, No. 1:2013cv00916 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Action (Strike), with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief may be Granted under Section 1983; ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); ORDER for Clerk to CLOSE CASE signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/29/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK HUERTA, 12 13 14 15 1:13-cv-0916 AWI EJP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15.) vs. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983 M. D. BITER, et al., Defendants. 16 17 ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g) 18 ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 19 20 Mark Huerta (Aplaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On March 10, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 24 this action be dismissed based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted under §1983. Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff requested and was granted two thirty-day extensions 27 of time to file objections. (Docs. 16, 17, 18, 19.) Plaintiff’s deadlines have now expired, and 28 as of the date of this order, no objections have been filed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. Plaintiff has not adequately alleged deliberate indifference by any defendant, cf. 5 Nguyen v. Biter, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119406 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015), nor has he 6 demonstrated an injury. 7 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 8 1. 9 10 10, 2015, are adopted in full; 2. 11 12 This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 3. 13 14 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 29, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.