Opinion
NO. CV 14-9165-AG (AGR)
09-30-2015
GREGORY LIDE, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the first amended complaint, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of Plaintiff's objections. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge.
On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 20, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Magistrate Judge screened the complaint to determine whether the action failed to state a claim on which relief might be granted. The Magistrate Judge found that the FAC failed to state a claim and gave Plaintiff until February 19, 2015 to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"). (Dkt. No. 10.)
On March 11, 2015, when Plaintiff had not filed a SAC, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report recommending dismissal of the FAC for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 11.) On March 31, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file objections to May 15, 2015.
On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections. Plaintiff apparently did not receive the Magistrate Judge's January 20, 2015 screening order. The Magistrate Judge ordered the Clerk to mail Plaintiff a copy of the order and a Central District civil rights complaint form. The Magistrate Judge admonished Plaintiff that if he failed to file a SAC by June 11, 2015, remedying the deficiencies outlined in the screening order, the FAC would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 16.) Plaintiff did not file a SAC.
On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a letter in which he stated that he had not received anything from the court since filing his objections on May 7, 2015. The Magistrate Judge directed the Clerk to mail Plaintiff another copy of the screening order (Dkt. No. 10) and a blank civil rights complaint form. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff until August 31, 2015, to file a SAC curing the deficiencies described in the screening order. The Magistrate Judge admonished Plaintiff that if he failed to file a timely SAC, the FAC would be subject to dismissal. (Dkt. No. 18.) Plaintiff did not file a SAC.
IT IS ORDERED that the first amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. DATED: September 30, 2015
/s/_________
ANDREW J. GUILFORD
United States District Judge