(PC) Chaves v. Shirley ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY CHAVES, Case No. 1:23-cv-0514 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 HEATHER SHIRLEY, J. CRONJAGER, CLOSE THE CASE and SCOTT DEGOUGH, 15 (Doc. 14) Defendants. 16 17 Danny Chaves initiated this action along with 16 other inmates by filing a civil rights 18 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Ricky L. Thomas et al. v. Shirley, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv- 19 00470-BAM, Doc. No. 1.) The Court severed the claims and ordered each plaintiff, including Chaves, 20 to submit his or her own signed complaint and pay the $402.00 filing fee or apply to proceed in forma 21 pauperis under in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff 22 filed his own civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 23 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 The Court found the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to show the Eastern District 25 of California is the proper venue for his claims, because Plaintiff did not clearly identify the 26 institution where the underlying events occurred. (Id. at 3-4.) The magistrate judge also found 27 the facts alleged were insufficient to demonstrate the defendants were liable for violations of 28 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to file an 1 | amended complaint, file a notice that he wanted to stand on the allegations in his complaint, or 2 | file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Jd. at 5.) 3 After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or take any other action in response to 4 | the Court’s order, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to 5 | comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 14 at 2.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 6 | action be dismissed without prejudice. (Ud. at 5.) The Court served the Findings and 7 | Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections must be filed within 14 days 8 | of the date of service. (/d. at 5.) In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff that the “failure to file 9 | objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 10 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file any objections 11 | and the time to do so has expired. 12 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 13 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are 14 || supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on August 29, 2023 (Doc. 14) are 16 ADOPTED in full. 17 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _ October 3, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28