Williams v. Aetna Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1583 JLT SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITH PREJUDICE ) 14 AETNA, INC., et al., ) (Doc. 11) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 On October 27, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint, seeking to proceed 18 pro se and in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to state any 19 cognizable claim and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on February 18, 2022. (Doc. 10.) 20 The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint and informed Plaintiff that the 21 failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in dismissal of the action, with prejudice. (Id. at 22 14.) After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff 23 failed to comply with the Court’s order and failed to prosecute the action. Therefore, the magistrate 24 judge recommended the matter be dismissed on April 1, 2022. (Doc. 11.) 25 The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations of 26 the magistrate judge. (Doc. 11 at 15.) In addition, the Court advised Plaintiff that “failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 16, citing 28 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 1 |} Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 3 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 4 || are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 1, 2022 (Doc. 11), are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 8 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. |] Dated: _ April 21, 2022 Cerin | Tower 12 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28