(PC) Cunningham v. Barragas

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 L.C. CUNNINGHAM, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0041 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING ) THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 14 BARRAGAS, et al., ) ) (Doc. 11) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 L.C. Cunningham is a state prisoner, who seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of 18 his civil rights related to his lack of a tablet after the one he was issued stopped working and was not 19 replaced. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 21 granted. (Doc. 9 at 4-8.) The Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, and 22 informed Plaintiff that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed 23 with prejudice. (Id. at 9.) 24 After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the 25 magistrate judge reiterated the findings that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, and recommended the 26 action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 11 at 5-8.) In addition, the magistrate judge found 27 terminating sanctions—including dismissal of the action with prejudice—were appropriate for 28 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to obey the Court’s order to file an amended 1 || complaint, after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit. (/d. at 9-10.) The Court serve 2 || these Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due with 3 || 14 days. Ud. at 10.) The Court advised him that the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified 4 || time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” 5 || Ud., at 10-11, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not fi 6 || objections, and the time to do so expired. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 8 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 9 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED in full. 11 2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15] Dated: _ July 9, 2024 ( LAW ph L. wary 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28