Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MARK CONRAD FAUROT, II,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TODD H. BARTON, Executive Officer, et

al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-CV-01005-AWI-SMS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 20)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE ACTION

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages and other relief concerning

alleged civil rights violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

On October 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

The Magistrate Judge determined the complaint failed to state a claim, and she filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. The

Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and gave notice that any objections to

the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within ten (10) days. No objections have

been filed.

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. Normally, the court allows pro se litigants, such as Plaintiff, notice of a complaint’s

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 11/29/07 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

pleading deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissing an action. See Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987). th th

Here, Plaintiff has already been given this notice and an opportunity to amend, but the

complaint’s deficiencies remain. Plaintiff is either unable or unwilling at allege facts that would

state a claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 24, 2007, are ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed October 13, 2006, is DISMISSED

without leave to amend; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 2