1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ARVELLO TUFONO, ) NO. CV 19-10578-JFW (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) 13 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 ) J. WILLIAMS, et al, ) 15 ) 16 Defendant. ) _________________________________ 17 18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all of the records 19 herein, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and 20 Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (“Objections”). Pursuant to

(b)(1)(C) 21 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the 22 Report to which objections have been stated. 23 24 Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set 25 forth in the Report. In doing so, the Court amends the Report to correct the following 26 typographical oversights: 27 28 1 (1) On page 3 line 11, the citation sentence is corrected to read: “Harris v. Mangum, 2

(9th Cir. 2017) (citing El-Shaddai v. Zamora,

, 3 1042 (9th Cir. 2016)).”; 4 (2) On page 4 line 4, the word “orders” is added at the end of the phrase “to prosecute 5 and comply with court”; 6 (3) On page 4 line 20, a third “7” is added at end of number “477.” 7 8 Additionally, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s argument, raised for the first time in 9 his Objections, that the Northern District’s dismissal of Tufono v. Nwaizugbu, No. C 10- 10 4777 RMW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011) does not constitute a “strike” because: 11 “[Plaintiff] was indigent, lacking sanitary, being housed in maximum security unit — at the 12 same time having his incoming and outgoing mail coming up mysteriously missing — now 13 at that time, less than 90 days after [Plaintiff] filed complaint . . . [Plaintiff] paroled out . . . 14 [and] never received the Northern District of California court[’s] dismissal on 1-31-2011— 15 so he never had a clue of the status or the need to amend.” (Objections at 2 (errors in 16 original).) Plaintiff’s assumption that the Northern District dismissed Plaintiff’s case against 17 James Nwaizugbu after Plaintiff missed the deadline for filing a First Amended Complaint 18 is incorrect. The Northern District dismissed Plaintiff’s case against Nwaizugbu without 19 granting Plaintiff leave to amend because it determined that the complaint failed to state a 20 claim and leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the Court accepts the finding that 21 the Northern District’s dismissal of Tufono v. Nwaizugbu, No. C 10-4777 RMW (PR) (N.D. 22 Cal. Jan. 31, 2011) constitutes a “strike” for the purposes of

(g). 23 \\ 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 \\ 27 \\ 28 \\ 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED and judgment 2 || shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. 3 4 || DATED: March 11, 2020 5 7% x, 6 JOHN F. WALTER , TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28