Opinion
No. 06-4114-CV-C-SOW.
August 28, 2006
ORDER
On July 25, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing plaintiff's claims. The parties were advised they could file written exceptions to the recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the exceptions filed by plaintiff on August 14, 2006. The issues raised in plaintiff's exceptions were adequately addressed in the report and recommendation. The court is persuaded that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct and should be adopted.
In his exceptions, plaintiff also requested reconsideration of his motion for appointment of counsel. Upon consideration, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reconsideration of his motion for appointment of counsel is denied [10]. It is further
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's July 25, 2006 Report and Recommendation is adopted [9]. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.