Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00416-5/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

REGENIAL WARD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00416-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY

A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH

RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED (Doc.

11)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL

COUNTS AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Plaintiff Regenial Ward (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 Rule 72-302.

On February 2, 2007, 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 Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. To date,

plaintiff has not filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Case 1:06-cv-00416-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 04/12/07 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

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on February 20, 2007. Although the 1

filing of a notice of appeal generally divests a district court of

jurisdiction to determine the “substantial rights” at issue in an action

during the pendency of the appeal, Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp., 847 F.

2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1988), an exception to this rule exists where a

deficiency in the notice of appeal “is clear to the district court.” Ruby v.

Secretary of the United States Navy, 365 F. 2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966). In

such a case the district court may proceed with the case “knowing that it has

not been deprived of jurisdiction.” Id. Because it is completely “clear to

the district court” that no appeal lies from a Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations, this Court knows “that it has not been deprived of

jurisdiction” over this action, and may consider the Findings and

Recommendations. 

2

Findings and Recommendations.1

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 February 2, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for plaintiff’s

failure to obey the court’s order of December 15, 2006,

and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; and

3. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00416-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2