Fossum v. Lamm

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TIMOTHY SCOTT FOSSUM, Case No. 1:24-cv-01374-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 12 RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING v. CASE 13 BRIAN LAMM, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Timothy Scott Fossum, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this 17 action on November 8, 2025. (Doc. 1.) On November 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge 18 screened the complaint, found that it failed to state a claim, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file 19 an amended complaint. (Doc. 7.) 20 On December 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) On January 13, 21 2025, the assigned magistrate judge screened the amended complaint, again found that it failed to 22 state a claim upon which relief could be granted and gave Plaintiff another thirty days to file a 23 second amended complaint. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the 24 deadline, and the assigned magistrate judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why 25 this matter should not be dismissed. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff failed to file a response by the deadline, 26 and on April 11, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 27 recommending that this matter be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. 14.) That order informed Plaintiff that he had 1 | fourteen days to file any objections and warned him that “failure to file objections within the 2 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 3 | 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not object. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 5 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the findings and 6 | recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court 7 | ORDERS: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 14) filed April 11, 2025, are ADOPTED 9 IN FULL. 10 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14| Dated: _ May 5, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28