UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 19, 2012
JIN YEONG WHANG, PLAINTIFF,
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED (Doc. 1.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS
Jin Yeong Whang ("Plaintiff"), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 30, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On September 5, 2012, the Court issued an order finding that the Complaint fails to set forth unintelligible claims for relief, and striking Plaintiff's Complaint from the record for lack of Plaintiff's signature, with leave to file a signed amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 3.) 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). To date, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court's order.*fn1 As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that this dismissal be subject to the "three-strikes" provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.