(PC) Roark v. Dyer ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED W. ROARK, Case No. 1:23-cv-1550 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 JERRY DYER, et al. CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 15) 16 17 Jared W. Roark initiated this action seeking to hold several individuals—including Jerry 18 Dyer, the Major of the City of Fresno; Margaret Mims, the former Fresno County Sheriff; Manny 19 Sandoval; and Blain Sullivan, a public defender—liable for violations of his rights. (Doc. 1.) 20 The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found 21 he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff was granted an 22 opportunity to file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 3-4.) 23 After Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order, the magistrate judge recommended 24 the action “be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure 25 to prosecute.” (Doc. 15 at 4.) In finding terminating sanctions were appropriate, the magistrate 26 judge considered the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 27 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and found the factors weighed in favor of dismissal. (Id. at 2-4.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections 1 | were due within 14 days. (Ud. at 4.) The Court advised him that the “[flailure to file objections 2 | within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. 3 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 4 After the Findings and Recommendations were served, Plaintiff filed a motion for a status 5 | update, which was granted by the Court. (Docs. 15, 18.) The magistrate judge summarized the 6 | procedural history in this action, including the recommendation for dismissal. (Doc. 18 at 2.) 7 | However, the magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff's most recent filings indicated he was at 8 | Atascadero State Hospital, and the prior documents of record were served to the address of record 9 | at CSP- Corcoran. (/d.) Therefore, the magistrate judge indicated he would hold the Findings 10 | and Recommendations in abeyance for 30 days, for Plaintiff to file: (1) objections, (2) an 11 | amended complaint, or (3) a notice of voluntary dismissal. U/d.) The Clerk of Court was directed 12 | to serve the order to both addresses at Atascadero State Hospital and CSP-Corcoran. Plaintiff did 13 | not file objections or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, and the time to do so expired. 14 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 15 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 16 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated February 29, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to obey court 20 orders and failure to prosecute; and 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 17, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28