Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00226-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS D. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. STOLMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00226-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 18)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. 10)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL

SHALL COUNT AS A STRIKE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G) 

Plaintiff Marcus D. Wilson (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 12, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

Case 1:05-cv-00226-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On July 7,

2006, the court granted plaintiff’s second request for an

additional thirty days within which to file an objection. More

than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 12, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This action is DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s due process claims are DISMISSED, with

prejudice;

b. Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claims under

California law are DISMISSED, with prejudice; and,

c. Plaintiff’s IIED claim under California law is

DISMISSED, without prejudice; and

3. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00226-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2