(PS) Mohamed v. United States ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDO YAHRA MOHAMED, No. 2:18-cv-02303-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Abdo Yahra Mohamed (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, owns a convenience store 18 that has been permanently disqualified from participating as a retailer in the Supplemental 19 Nutrition Assistance Program. On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking an appeal 20 of the disqualification under 7 U.S.C.A. § 2023(a) and declaratory judgement under 28 U.S.C.A. 21 § 2201. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the 22 second cause of action. (ECF No. 13.) 23 Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion to dismiss and the magistrate judge filed an order for 24 Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a timely opposition 25 or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff failed to do so 26 by the deadline. On January 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 27 recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders 28 and the Court’s local rules. (ECF No. 17.) The findings and recommendations were served on 1 the parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and 2 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Neither party has filed objections 3 to the Findings and Recommendations. 4 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 5 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 6 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 7 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 8 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 9 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 9, 2020 (ECF No. 17), are 12 adopted in full; and 13 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders 14 and the Court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 110. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 11, 2020 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28