Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00568/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00568-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL LOUIS VEGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. MENCHACA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00568-DAD-GSA

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff Angel Louis Vega is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 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 302. 

On October 3, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel be denied and that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. (Doc. No. 13.) Those findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 5.) To date, no objections have been filed, 

and the time in which to do so has now passed. 

/////

/////

Case 1:18-cv-00568-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/16/20 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

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

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 13) are 

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied; 

3. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00568-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2