(PC) Davis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON GENE DAVIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-1769 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 CDCR, et al., CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 26) 16 17 Aaron Gene Davis filed this action, seeking to hold the defendants liable for violations of 18 his civil rights while incarcerated at North Kern State Prison. (Docs. 7, 23.) The magistrate 19 judge screened the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Plaintiff stated a 20 cognizable claim for excessive force, but his other claims were not cognizable. (Doc. 23.) The 21 magistrate judge granted Plaintiff the opportunity to proceed with his cognizable claim or file an 22 amended complaint. (Id. at 1, 9.) The magistrate judge informed Plaintiff that if he failed to 23 comply with the order, then dismissal would be recommended. (Id. at 10.) After Plaintiff failed 24 to respond to the screening order, the magistrate judge issued an order to Plaintiff to show cause 25 why the action should be dismissed. (Doc. 25.) Again, Plaintiff failed to respond. 26 After Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause, the magistrate judge found 27 Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order and failed to prosecute the action. (Doc. 26 at 2.) 28 In finding terminating sanctions were appropriate, the magistrate judge considered the factors 1 | identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 | Ud. at 3-4.) The magistrate judge found the factors weighed in favor of termination, and 3 || recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Jd. at 5.) 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 5 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 26 at 5.) The Court advised him that the “failure 6 | to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 7 | Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 8 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 10 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 11 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on April 17, 2024 (Doc. 26) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _May 21, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28