Dustin Thomas Gordon v. Jim Cooper, et al.

E.D. California

Dustin Thomas Gordon v. Jim Cooper, et al.

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02741

StatusUnknown

This text of Dustin Thomas Gordon v. Jim Cooper, et al. (Dustin Thomas Gordon v. Jim Cooper, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dustin Thomas Gordon v. Jim Cooper, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUSTIN THOMAS GORDON, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-2741 TLN CSK P 13 v. 14 JIM COOPER, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Dustin Thomas Gordon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 18 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 1, 2025, the magistrate judge dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and 21 ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 18 at 8.) 22 Thirty days passed and Plaintiff did not submit anything to the Court. Accordingly, on June 12, 23 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending the Court dismiss 24 the action without prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) The findings and recommendations were served on 25 Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 2.) 26 This deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed. 27 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 28 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 1 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 2 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 3 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 4 the record and by the proper analysis. See also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th 5 Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) (dismissing case for failure to comply with court order). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 19), are ADOPTED in full; and 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 41(b). 10 Date: September 9, 2025 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUSTIN THOMAS GORDON, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-2741 TLN CSK P 13 v. 14 JIM COOPER, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Dustin Thomas Gordon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 18 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 1, 2025, the magistrate judge dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and 21 ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 18 at 8.) 22 Thirty days passed and Plaintiff did not submit anything to the Court. Accordingly, on June 12, 23 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending the Court dismiss 24 the action without prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) The findings and recommendations were served on 25 Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 2.) 26 This deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed. 27 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 28 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 1 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 2 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 3 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 4 the record and by the proper analysis. See also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th 5 Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) (dismissing case for failure to comply with court order). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 19), are ADOPTED in full; and 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 41(b). 10 Date: September 9, 2025 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dustin Thomas Gordon v. Jim Cooper, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dustin-thomas-gordon-v-jim-cooper-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack