Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00132/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00132-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CERVANTES, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

DERRAL ADAMS, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-0132 REC/WMW P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR DEFENDANT

On May 17, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that the court dismiss this action because of

plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Order filed on

April 12, 2005 directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint

stating a claim upon which relief can be granted.

On June 8, 2005, plaintiff timely filed objections to the

recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record herein de novo.

In his objections, plaintiff does not provide any

explanation for his failure to timely comply with the April 12,

Case 1:05-cv-00132-REC-WMW Document 11 Filed 06/14/05 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

2

2005 Order. Plaintiff essentially argues that the Magistrate

Judge erred in concluding in the April 12, 2005 Order that

plaintiff’s complaint did not state a claim upon which relief can

be granted and requests that the court “withdraw the report and

grant plaintiff’s complaint”. 

The court concurs with the April 12, 2005 Order that the

complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. In addition, the court notes that Cal.Admin.Code 15 §

3174, pertaining to restrictions on family visits, has been

upheld in the face of an ex post facto challenge. See Allegrezza

v. Gomez, 2000 WL 1888821 (9th Cir. 2000). Because plaintiff has

not timely complied with the April 12, 2005 Order and presents

nothing in his objections from which it may be inferred that

plaintiff can state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the

court dismisses this action for failure to state a claim.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on May 17, 2005

is adopted.

2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.

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

defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00132-REC-WMW Document 11 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2