Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loadholt
Defendant
Claudell Earl Martin
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOADHOLT, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00156-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT COUNTING DISMISSAL AS A

STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

(ECF NO. 20)

Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed on February 1, 2010 pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California. 

///////

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 05/08/12 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

On March 30, 2012, Findings and Recommendations for Dismissal (Findings and

Recommendations, ECF No. 20) were filed in which the Magistrate Judge recommended

dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was notified that his Objection,

if any, was due within thirty (30) days. 

Plaintiff filed an Objection on grounds his First Amended Complaint alleges a “chilling

effect” sufficient to state a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim notwithstanding the

absence of any material harm caused by Defendant. (Obj. to Findings and

Recommendations, ECF No. 21.)

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, and

with regard to Plaintiff’s Objection having determined that the First Amended Complaint

does not allege a threat of punishment or regulatory action sufficient to claim a First

Amendment chilling effect, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

///////

///////

///////

///////

///////

///////

///////

///////

///////

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 05/08/12 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed March 30,

2012, in full, 

2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against Plaintiff, and 

4. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 05/08/12 Page 3 of 3