Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00588/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00588-12/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

ERIC V. HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. SHERMAN, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00588-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 20)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE AS TO SECTION 1983

CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

AS TO STATE LAW CLAIMS, (Doc.

17)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL

COUNTS AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Plaintiff Eric V. Holmes (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 August 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 31 Filed 05/11/07 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

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. 

After obtaining multiple extensions of time, plaintiff filed an

Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations

on April 30, 2007.

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 August 17,

2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims are DISMISSED, with

prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted;

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without

prejudice to filing in state court; and,

4. This dismissal shall count as a strike under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 31 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 2