Williams v. Drakaina Logistics ( 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-1436 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION 14 DRAKAINA LOGISTICS, et al., (Doc. 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Prince Paul Raymond Williams asserts he suffered violations of his civil rights and federal 18 criminal statutes. (See Doc. 4.) The assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a 19 cognizable claim and granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 6.) 20 The Court advised Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge 21 would “recommend… this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and to obey a court 22 order.” (Id. at 12, emphasis omitted.) 23 After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge issued an order to 24 show cause why the action should not be dismissed or to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) 25 Again, Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order. The magistrate judge then found Plaintiff 26 failed to comply with the Court’s orders and failed to prosecute the matter. (Doc. 11.) Therefore, 27 the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 3.) The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to file any objections to the Findings and 1 | Recommendations (Doc. 11 at 2.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections 2 | within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Ud. at 2-3, citing 3 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 4 | (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time to do so has passed. 5 According to of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 6 | case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 7 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 5, 2022 (Doc. 11) are 9 adopted in full. 10 2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14] Dated: _May 24, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28