From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peralta v. Hardly

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Mar 16, 2011
Case No. C10-1658-JCC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C10-1658-JCC.

March 16, 2011


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue, and Plaintiff's objections. The Court reviewed de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff's objections do not, however, address the merits of the Report and Recommendation, namely, Plaintiff's failure to abide by several deadlines imposed by the Court and Plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:

1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.

2. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 1915A(b)(1).

3. This dismissal constitutes a STRIKE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

4. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue.


Summaries of

Peralta v. Hardly

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Mar 16, 2011
Case No. C10-1658-JCC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2011)
Case details for

Peralta v. Hardly

Case Details

Full title:ISAIAS PERALTA, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN HARDLY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Date published: Mar 16, 2011

Citations

Case No. C10-1658-JCC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2011)