Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00973/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00973-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ROBIN F. MATTISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM C. MATTISON; REBECCA D. 

MATTISON,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:16-cv-00973-LJO-SKO

CORRECTED1 ORDER ADOPTING 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 

DISMISSED

(Docs. 5, 6) 

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff Robin Mattison (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, filed this action against Defendants William Mattison and Rebecca 

Mattison (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) The complaint was duly screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). On July 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended the action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable federal claim. (Doc. 5.) On August 11, 

2016, Plaintiff filed her objections to the findings and recommendation for dismissal, contending 

she had indeed stated a claim upon which relief could be granted and rearticulating the allegations 

of the complaint. (Doc. 7.)2 

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 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

 

1

 This Correction is issued solely to modify the caption of this Order. 

2

 Plaintiff further requested that, should the Court adopt the findings and recommendation that her complaint be 

dismissed, the Court should do so without prejudice. The Court notes that dismissal from federal court with prejudice 

is no bar to Plaintiff bringing her action in state small claims court. 

Case 1:16-cv-00973-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 08/30/16 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

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 19, 2016 

(Doc. 5) are ADOPTED IN FULL with the sole clarification that the action is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING IN STATE COURT; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to have the U.S. Marshal serve the complaint (Doc. 6) is 

DENIED as moot; and

3. This Corrected Order is entered nunc pro tunc, taking effect August 17, 2016,

superseding the previous Order Adopting entered August 17, 2016 (Doc. 9); 

accordingly, it is not necessary for the Clerk of Court to re-enter judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00973-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2