Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01636-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sevan Kayaian
Plaintiff
U.S. Marshals
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEVAN KAYAIAN, CASE NO. CV F 06-1636 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

U.S. MARSHALS,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sevan Kayaian (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on November

14, 2006, filed an untitled document which this Court construes as a complaint (“complaint”) against

the U.S. Marshals. The complaint lacks a caption, is generally unintelligible and states in part:

The U.S. Marshalls [sic] duties [sic] are called every time I come to the Federal

Court House. They escort me to and from where I need to be. . . .

I demand that they provide me a vehicle, fuel card, cell phone and copies of all

records they have on me.

The magistrate judge issued November 17, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this action

without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further

attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the complaint’s unintelligible statements and apparent

Case 1:06-cv-01636-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 12/28/06 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

27

28

2

attempts to vex. Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s November 17, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s November 17, 2006 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to

establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted

based on the complaint’s unintelligible statements and apparent attempts to vex; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01636-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 2