(PC) Dukes v. Soto ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARNELL DUKES, No. 1:21-cv-1570 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS ACTION 14 TAMMY SOTO and JOHN PEARCE, (Doc. 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Darnell Dukes seeks to hold the defendants liable for deliberate indifference to his serious 18 medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See Doc. 11.) The magistrate judge found 19 Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim, and further leave to amend would be futile. (Doc. 12 20 at 5-9.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed without leave to 21 amend. (Id. at 10.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff on the 22 same date, and it notified him that any objections must be filed within 14 days. (Id.) The Court 23 also informed him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 24 waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 25 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file objections 26 and the time to do so has expired. 27 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 28 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 1 | Recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on July 28, 2023 (Doc. 12) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 | Dated: _ September 6, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28