(PC)Ira Pernell Callahan v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IRA PERNELL CALLAHAN, Case No.: 1:22-cv-221 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO 14 UNKNOWN et al., OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 13) 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order in this case noting, that though 18 Plaintiff complains of safety, policies, and pandemic health protocols at North Kern State Prison, 19 “Plaintiff does not name any defendants. The complaint is in letter form and addressed to ‘To 20 Whom it May Concern’ and appears to be on behalf of all inmates.” (Doc. 11 at 2.) The 21 magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed “to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 22 and 10 and fails to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the 23 magistrate judge determined dismissal with leave to amend was appropriate. (Id.) 24 The magistrate judge provided the applicable legal standards to plead claims under 25 Section 1983, supervisor liability, deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement, and state 26 law claims. (Doc. 11 at 4-11.) The order allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 27 thirty days or file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 12.) The magistrate judge also informed Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation of “dismissal 1 | of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.” 2 | Ud. at 12, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to 3 | the Court’s order. 4 The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 13.) The magistrate 5 | judge reiterated that Plaintiff did not name any defendants, failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10 6 | of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and did not state a cognizable claim in the complaint 7 | filed. Ud. at 2-5.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action 8 | and failed to comply with the Court’s prior order. (/d. at 12-13.) Consequently, the magistrate 9 | judge recommended the action be dismissed with prejudice. Cd. at 14.) 10 The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to file objections to the Findings and 11 | Recommendations. (Doc. 13 at 14.) The Court advised Plaintiff “that failure to file objections 12 | within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s 13 | factual findings’ on appeal.” (Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 14 | 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff has not filed objections, 15 | and the deadline to do so has now passed. 16 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 17 | F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully 18 | reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 19 | by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 25, 2022 (Doc. 13), are 21 adopted in full. 22 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice. 23 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ May 31, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28