Opinion
4:24-cv-00110-LPR
10-30-2024
JEFFREY ELMORE ADC #091418 PLAINTIFF v. CANTRELL BASS, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has received a Recommended Disposition (RD) from United States Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore (Doc. 23). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. After a de novo review of the RD, along with careful consideration of the entire case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the RD as its findings and conclusions in all respects.
As explained in the RD, on June 12, 2024, Judge Moore entered an Order explaining the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint and giving Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies. Order (Doc. 21). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the 30-day window. On September 23, 2024, after Judge Moore entered the RD screening Plaintiff's Complaint and recommending dismissal, Plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint. Mot. to Amend (Doc. 24). But even if it had been timely filed, Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint does not remedy any of the deficiencies Judge Moore noted in her original Order and in the RD. See id. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 24) is therefore DENIED.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court recommends, in the future, that the dismissal of this action count as a “strike” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.