Opinion
Case No. CV-F-05-1424 FVS LJO.
January 18, 2006
ORDER TO ADOPT AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Allen Richardson ("plaintiff") proceeds pro se in this action. The United States District Court, District of Maryland transferred to this Court this action in which plaintiff filed "civil complaints" against five defendants. The magistrate judge issued his November 22, 2005 order ("November 22 order") to sever plaintiff's claims against defendant Fresno police officers T. Silva and P. Mark from plaintiff's claims against defendants J. Isquierdo, P. Xiong and R.W. Garrison. Plaintiff's claims against defendants J. Isquierdo, P. Xiong and R.W. Garrison proceed in this Court's case number CV F 05-1456 OWW DLB. The November 22 order required plaintiff, no later than December 7, 2005, to the pay the $250 filing fee for this action or to submit a fully completed in forma pauperis application to demonstrate he is entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees. The magistrate judge issued his December 9, 2005 findings and recommendations to dismiss this action without prejudice on grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with the November 22 order and failed to timely submit the $250 filing fee or an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. On December 12, 2005, plaintiff belatedly filed his application to proceed without prepayment of fees. The magistrate judge overlooked plaintiff's delay to file his application, vacated his December 9, 2005 findings and recommendations, and granted plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees for this action only.
In his complaint in this action, plaintiff attempts to allege claims against defendant Fresno police officers T. Silva and P. Mark (collectively "defendants"). Without specifically identifying defendants, the complaint alleges that on March 21, 2003, "police manufactured evidence and deprived [plaintiff] of his liberty and due process of law. Police used a known informant to entrap citizens for the act of solisitation [sic] of prostitution."
The magistrate judge issued his December 20, 2005 amended findings and recommendations to dismiss this action without prejudice on grounds that the complaint fails to satisfy pleading requirements, fails to state viable claims against defendants, and an attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the complaint's deficiencies, limitations defense, and plaintiff's apparent attempt to vex defendants. Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the amended 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 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, this Court:
1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge's December 20, 2005 findings and recommendations;
2. DISMISSES this entire action without prejudice on grounds that the complaint fails to satisfy pleading requirements, fails to state viable claims against defendants, and an attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the complaint's deficiencies, limitations defense, and plaintiff's apparent attempt to vex defendants; and
3. DIRECTS this Court's clerk to close this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to enter this order and furnish copies to counsel.