(PC) Ontiveros v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, No. 1:2019cv01651 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 50 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and Directing the Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge for Purpose of Closing Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/02/2021. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERMAN RENE ONTIVEROS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION and M. PORTER, No. 1:19-cv-01651-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE (Doc. No. 50) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Herman Rene Ontiveros is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on 20 plaintiff’s third amended complaint against defendants California Department of Corrections and 21 Rehabilitation and M. Porter for alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights to access the courts. This 22 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 23 Local Rule 302. 24 On January 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 25 recommending that plaintiff’s claim for violation of his First Amendment right to access the 26 courts set forth in his third amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim because he 27 failed to allege any actual injury, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order and 28 that his state-law claims be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 1 1 (Doc. No. 50.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the plaintiff and contained 2 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3 9.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 5 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 7 analysis. 8 9 10 11 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 15, 2021, (Doc. No. 50), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims based upon denial of access to the courts are 12 dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a 13 court order; 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3. Plaintiff’s state-law claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge for the purpose of closing this case and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.