Washington v. Paca ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRY KENJI WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:23-cv-0673 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 14 MARY L. PACA, et al., COURT’S ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 9) 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found Plaintiff failed to state a 18 cognizable claim on August 17, 2023. (Doc. 7.) The magistrate judge gave Plaintiff the following 19 options: to file an amended complaint within 30 days; to file a notice of voluntary dismissal; or to 20 inform the Court that he wished to stand on the allegations of the complaint, though it would be 21 subject to dismissal. (Id. at 10.) The Court informed Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply 22 with the order, the action would be subject to dismissal. (Id.) 23 After Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, 24 the magistrate judge issued an order to Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be 25 dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s screening order and for failure to prosecute 26 this case. (Doc. 8.) The Court again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Court’s 27 order would result in a recommendation to dismiss this action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not file any 28 response, and the time to do so has passed. 1 Consequently, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders 2 |and failed to prosecute the action. (Doc. 9 at 1-2.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 3 | the action be dismissed. (/d.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff 4 | and notified him that any objections were due within 21 days. Ud. at 2) The Court also advised 5 |him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights 6 |on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Thus, any 7 |objections were due no later than November 13, 2023. To date, no objections have been filed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 9 |F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), the Court performed a de novo review of the case. Having carefully 10 reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the 11 |record and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendation filed October 17, 2023 (Doc. 9) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _November 16, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28