Lorenz v. Shepard ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALICIA LORENZ, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00604 JLT EPG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 M. SHEPARD, et al., CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendants. (Docs. 8, 9.) 16 17 Alicia Lorenz and Patrick Lorenz, Sr. seek to hold M. Shepard, a correctional officer, 18 liable for violations of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 9, 10.) Plaintiffs 19 assert Shephard unlawfully telephoned Plaintiffs regarding an incident at Corcoran State Prison in 20 which their son was hurt and “would not give any details.” (Doc. 9 at 5; see also Doc. 10 at 5; 21 Doc. 1 at 3.) The magistrate judge reviewed the separate pleadings filed by Plaintiffs and 22 considered the documents together as consolidated amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) The 23 magistrate judge found Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of their 24 constitutional rights, and recommended the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 3-6.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiffs and notified them that 26 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 11 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiffs that the 27 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 28 1 | Ud. at 6-7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiffs did not 2 | file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 4 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 5 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Though the Court appreciates 6 | how distressing it was to the plaintiffs to receive the phone call at issue, that conduct does not 7 | violate the Constitution. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued March 4, 2024 (Doc. 11) are 9 ADOPTED in full. 10 2. This case 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 8, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28