Opinion
2:23-cv-00235-LPR
06-24-2024
ADRIAN JACOBS PLAINTIFF v. MITCHELL, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge
The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Doc. 7) and the Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 8). After a de novo review of the RD, along with careful consideration of the Objections and the entire case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects.
In an Order dated April 29, 2024, the Court wrote: “The RD explains that Plaintiff's Complaint mostly concerns the treatment of another inmate, and thus Plaintiff lacks standing to bring those claims . . . [, but] Plaintiff filed Objections to the RD (Doc. 8) that strongly imply (if not expressly indicate) that the allegations in the Complaint may concern Plaintiff personally, rather than another unnamed inmate.” Order (Doc. 9) at 1. The Court therefore gave Plaintiff 45 days to file an Amended Complaint clarifying these allegations. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to file an Amended Complaint would result in the Court adopting the RD and dismissing the case entirely. Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and the time for doing so has expired.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court recommends that dismissal of this case count as a “strike,” in the future, for purposes 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 or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.