(PC) Carroll v. Vallejo Police Department ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAINE DEON CARROLL, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0004 JLT GSA (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND 13 v. ) DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 14 VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) (Doc. 17) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Tremaine Deon Carroll asserts her civil rights were violated and seeks to hold the defendants 18 liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 5.) The assigned magistrate judge screened the allegations 19 of the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff failed to state a 20 cognizable claim. (Doc. 14 at 4-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to either file an 21 amended complaint or notify the Court that she wished to stand on the First Amended Complaint, 22 which case Plaintiff was informed the magistrate judge would recommend the matter be dismissed. 23 (Id. at 13-14.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order. 24 On May 19, 2023, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s prior 25 order and recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 17.) The Findings and 26 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff on the same date and it notified plaintiff that any objections 27 were due “on or before June 9, 2023.” (Id. at 3, emphasis omitted.) In addition, the Court advised 28 Plaintiff that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 1 || appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 2 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise respond 3 || to the Findings and Recommendations. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 5 || review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings an 6 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 19, 2023 (Doc. 17) are ADOPTE 8 in full. 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to comply with th 10 Court’s order. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 13 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 14]! Dated: _ June 26, 2023 ( LAW ph L. wan 15 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28