Opinion
1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG (PC)
11-22-2016
BRANDON FAVOR-EL, Plaintiff, v. MYCHELLE ROME, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF NO. 25) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
(ECF NOS. 27 & 32) ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
Brandon Favor-El ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on April 1, 2016. (ECF No. 9). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 19, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, and that this dismissal be subject to the "three-strikes" provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 27), as well as a request for a forty day extension to file objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff's request for a forty day extension was granted (ECF No. 28), but the forty day extension has expired and Plaintiff did not file any additional objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Plaintiff's objections are largely incoherent, and do not raise any relevant arguments.
As Plaintiff's case is being dismissed, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for bail, bond, or own recognizance relief, request to subpoena a witness, request for an "arrest warrant information," request for a review of evidence, and request for a police interview, all of which are included in his objections. The Court will also deny Plaintiff's request for release from custody and request for a mental health evaluation. (ECF No. 32).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on August 19, 2016, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;
3. This dismissal is subject to the "three-strikes" provision set forth in § 1915(g). Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015);
4. Plaintiff's request for bail, bond, or own recognizance relief, request to subpoena a witness, request for an "arrest warrant information," request for a review of evidence, and request for a police interview are DENIED;
5. Plaintiff's request for release from custody and request for a mental health evaluation are DENIED; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
6. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Dated: November 22 , 2016
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE