Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01063-2/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

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1063 DFL PAN P

vs.

ROGEL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 General Order No. 262.

On March 17, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On April 20, 2006,

plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations, and on June 20, 2006,

plaintiff filed a request for leave to cure the deficiencies that the magistrate judge found in the

original, first and second amended complaints filed by plaintiff. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including plaintiff’s objections and

Case 2:05-cv-01063-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 08/28/06 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

2

his June 20, 2006 request. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. For the reasons set

forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, plaintiff has failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, and the deficiencies in the three pleadings filed by plaintiff

could not be cured by amendment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 17, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DATED: 8/25/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01063-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2