(PC) Samuel Archuleta v. Founlong et al, No. 1:2018cv00693 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS ; ORDDER DISMISSING THIS CASE, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; ORDER that Dismissal is Subject to 28 USC 1915(g); ORDER for Clerk to Close Case, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/8/19. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL ARCHULETA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. K. FOUNLONG, et al., Defendants. 16 1:18-cv-00693-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 14.) ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 17 ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 18 19 20 Samuel Archuleta (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 22 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On February 12, 2019, 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. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file 26 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has 27 expired, and Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and 28 recommendations. 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. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. 7 8 12, 2019, are adopted in full; 2. 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on February This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 3. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 11 1915(g); See Harris v. Mangum, 15-15054, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017); 12 and 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 8, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF 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.