Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00592/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00592-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 660
Nature of Suit: Occupational Safety And Health
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR LARA CERVANTES, CASE NO. CV F 06-0592 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

Defendant.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Hector Lara Cervantes (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on May

23, 2006, filed his complaint, the caption of which lists as defendant State of California Attorney

General. The complaint is generally unintelligible and states the Patriot Act was violated, that plaintiff

and his former wife were “implanted with some kind of microchip implants,” and that plaintiff “is going

to press federal charges on science medical, science, technology science run by state and federal agences

[sic].” A report of a December 11, 2005 CT scan of plaintiff’s head and cervical spine is attached to the

complaint.

The magistrate judge issued his June 8, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further

attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on jurisdictional defects and the complaint’s fanciful,

Case 1:06-cv-00592-AWI-LJO Document 7 Filed 07/07/06 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

delusional and unintelligible statements. 

Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s June 8, 2006 findings and recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to

establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted

based on jurisdictional defects and the complaint’s fanciful, delusional and unintelligible

statements; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00592-AWI-LJO Document 7 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2