Summary
In K'napp v. Knowles, No. 2:06-cv-00453-GEB-GGH (E.D.Cal. 2007), the court stated "some of plaintiff's claims in his long and rambling series of disjointed allegations may be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but it is not the function of this court to attempt to ferret them out from a complaint so plainly violative of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on its face."
Summary of this case from Knapp v. CateOpinion
2:06-cv-0453-GEB-GGH-P.
June 13, 2007
ORDER
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 General Order No. 262.
On May 11, 2007, 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 twenty 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 72-304, 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 May 11, 2007, are adopted in full; and
2. The second amended complaint, filed on December 7, 2006, is dismissed with prejudice, for plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, and this case is closed.