Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00500-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL GLEN SHAMBLIN, CASE NO. CV F 05-0500 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

FRAN RALEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Samuel Glen Shamblin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se in this

purported 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983") action. Plaintiff proceeds on his section 1983 form

complaint (“complaint”) to name as defendants several court reporters with the Fresno County Superior

Court (collectively “defendants”). The complaint alleges defendants altered court transcripts on January

25, 2000, January 26, 2001 and August 1, 2001. The complaint seeks a “full investigation.” 

The magistrate judge issued his August 31, 2006 order (“August 31 order”) to dismiss the

complaint on grounds that it: (1) fails to satisfy pleading requirements and to allege a cognizable claim;

(2) is susceptible to limitations defenses; and (3) appears intended to vex defendants. The August 31

order granted plaintiff up to October 5, 2006 to file an amended complaint and admonished plaintiff that

“failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order will result in a

recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order.” (Bold in original.)

Plaintiff filed no timely amended complaint.

Case 1:05-cv-00500-OWW -LJO Document 22 Filed 11/27/06 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

The magistrate judge issued his October 12, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on groundsthat plaintiff has failed to: (1) file a complaint to satisfy F.R.Civ.P.

8(a) and to state a cognizable claim which does not appear time-barred or intended to vex; and (2)

comply with a court order, to respond meaningfully and intelligently to the order, and to prosecute this

action. 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 October 12, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s October 12, 2006 findings and recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on groundsthat plaintiff has failed to: (1) file

a complaint to satisfy F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and to state a cognizable claim which does not

appear time-barred or intended to vex; and (2) comply with a court order, to respond

meaningfully and intelligently to the order, and to prosecute this action; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00500-OWW -LJO Document 22 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2