Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00348/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00348-3/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

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M.E. SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00348-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee (“plaintiff”), a state

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

On December 21, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-00348-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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

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.

The court notes that Plaintiff has filed an appeal in this

action. In general, the filing a notice of appeal transfers

jurisdiction over the matters appealed to the court of appeals,

and the district court generally is divested of jurisdiction over

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Griggs v.

Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per

curiam); Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir.

2001). However, a notice of appeal from a nonappealable order

will not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Estate of

Conners by Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993);

United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 838 (9th Cir.1981); Ruby

v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir.1966) (en

banc). Here, Plaintiff is attempting to appeal the Magistrate

Judge’s order dismissing this action with leave to amend. Where

a notice of appeal fails to transfer jurisdiction to the

appellate court, jurisdiction remains in the district court

because jurisdiction “cannot float in the air.” Estate of

Conners by Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir. 1995);

Ruby, 365 F.2d at 388. Plaintiff has failed to file an amended

complaint, and Plaintiff’s attempts to appeal earlier orders of

this court do not deprive the court of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 21,

Case 1:05-cv-00348-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for

plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order, and for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00348-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3