Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00994/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00994-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

SARN K. SAEPHAN )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CASTILLO, et. al., )

) 

Defendants. )

)

)

)

)

)

____________________________________)

CASE NO: 1:07-cv-00994 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH

RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. 9)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL COUNTS

AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G)

Plaintiff Sarn K. Saephan (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in 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 72-302.

On May 14, 2008, 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 and

Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations.

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

Case 1:07-cv-00994-DLB Document 25 Filed 06/16/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 14, 2008, is adopted in full;

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order,

and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00994-DLB Document 25 Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 2