Jones v. Pope ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID D. JONES and FAAVAOA JONES, Case No. 1:22-cv-01232-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 (Doc. 6) 15 THOMAS J. POPE, Defendant. 16 17 18 David D. Jones and Faavaoa Jones are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 action, which they initiated by filing a complaint on September 27, 2022. (Doc. 1.) On October 25, 20 2022, the assigned magistrate judge found that the complaint does not set forth any cognizable 21 federal claim and there is no diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 6.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge 22 recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. (Id.) 23 The Court granted the parties 21 days from the date of service to file any objections to the 24 recommendation of the magistrate judge. (Doc. 6 at 6.) In addition, the Court advised them “that 25 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s 26 order.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).) Thus, any objections 27 were due no later than November 18, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed. 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 1 | F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully 2 |reviewed the matter, the Court finds the findings and recommendation are supported by the record 3 | and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 25, 2022 (Doc. 6) are 5 ADOPTED IN FULL. 6 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 29, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28