(PC) Outhoummountry v. Funderburk ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STACEN OMAR OUTHOUMMOUNTRY, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0954 JLT BAM (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION 13 v. ) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ) 14 FUNDERBURK, et al., ) (Doc. 14) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 The assigned magistrate judge screened the First Amended Complaint and determined Plaintiff 18 failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 14.) The magistrate judge 19 observed that Plaintiff was previously provided the relevant legal standards and failed to cure the 20 deficiencies in his complaint. (Id. at 8.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be 21 dismissed. (Id.) 22 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff. It advised him that any 23 objections had to be filed within 14 days. (Doc. 14 at 1, 8.) In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff 24 that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to 25 challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. at 8, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 26 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014), citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To 27 date, Plaintiff has not filed objections and the deadline to do so has expired. 28 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 2 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 3 || are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 2, 2022 (Doc. 14), are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _ December 8, 2022 ( Lin fi L. wan 11 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28