Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00524/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00524-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK O. FRANKLIN, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00524-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14),

DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY

THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH

RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED (Docs. 1

and 13) AND DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Patrick O. Franklin, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this

civil rights action seeking relief under 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 April 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objection to the Findings

Case 1:05-cv-00524-REC -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/11/06 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

and Recommendations, if any, was to be filed within twenty days. 

To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 17, 2006,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for

plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of February 28,

2006, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, and the dismissal shall count as a strike under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

for defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00524-REC -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2