From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foust v. Consumer Attorney Mktg. Serv.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 29, 2021
2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC)

12-29-2021

CARL FOUST, Plaintiff, v. CONSUMER ATTORNEY MARKETING SERVICE, Defendant.


ORDER

WILLIAM B.SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 December 3, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2021, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiffs second amended complaint, ECF No. 28, is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim;
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.


Summaries of

Foust v. Consumer Attorney Mktg. Serv.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 29, 2021
2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021)
Case details for

Foust v. Consumer Attorney Mktg. Serv.

Case Details

Full title:CARL FOUST, Plaintiff, v. CONSUMER ATTORNEY MARKETING SERVICE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 29, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021)