Alvarez v. Morris Shea Bridge Company

Opinion

SERGIO ALVAREZ, No. 1:24-cv-01487-KES-BAM Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING v. CASE MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY, Doc. 8 Defendant. Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 5, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found that it failed to state a claim. Doc. 7. The screening order provided plaintiff with the relevant pleading standard and ordered plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Id. The screening order also warned plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint, the assigned magistrate judge would issue findings and recommendations recommending that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the screening order. Accordingly, on July 14, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 8. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. □□□ at 7. Plaintiff filed objections on July 17, 2025. Doc. 9. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiffs objections state that he believed he should have been served by defendant and vaguely reference a separate retaliation case but do not address the merits of the findings and recommendations or screening order and do not request another opportunity to amend his complaint. As the assigned magistrate judge explained in the screening order, the Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Doc. 7 at 1. “Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) . . . allows a district court to dismiss, sua sponte and prior to service of process, a complaint that fails to state a claim... .” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). No service upon defendant was necessary, and as defendant has not made an appearance in this action, defendant was not required to serve plaintiff. Moreover, the docket reflects that the court served the magistrate judge’s screening order and findings and recommendations upon plaintiff on the dates they were issued. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 14, 2025, Doc. 8, are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ July 23, 2025 4h | | 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE