Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01589/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01589-7/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-01589-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF Nos. 31, 32)

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 

action in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California on May 3, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The action was transferred to the Fresno Division of 

this court on September 27, 2012. (ECF No. 15.) 

On July 31, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend. 

(ECF No. 20.) On December 18, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

with leave to amend. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 24, 

2014. (ECF No. 31.) 

On February 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. The 

Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 

Case 1:12-cv-01589-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 2
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

objections were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed objections on 

February 27, 2014. (ECF No. 33.)

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, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. 

Plaintiff’s varied objections, including his frivolous references to the Commercial 

Affidavit Procedure and “Affidavit of information of felonies and misdemeanors,” do not 

warrant rejection of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 33, p. 2.) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on February 5, 2014, are adopted in 

full;

2. This action is DISMISSED based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 

section 1983 claim; and

3. The dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01589-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 02/28/14 Page 2 of 2