(PC) Harris v. Ceballos

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARNEST S. HARRIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-0389-JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 CEBALLOS, et al., CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 10) 16 17 Earnest S. Harris is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 action, seeking to hold the defendants liable for violations of his rights while incarcerated at 19 Corcoran State Prison. The magistrate judge screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 8 at 3-9.) The Court 21 granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies 22 identified. (Id. at 10.) 23 After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the 24 Court, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action. (Doc. 10.) In doing so, 25 the magistrate judge reiterated the findings that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Id. at 26 3-9.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order and failed 27 to prosecute the action. (Id. at 10.) The magistrate judge considered the factors identified by the 28 Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986), and found 1 | terminating sanctions are appropriate for Plaintiff's inaction. (/d. at 10-11.) Therefore, the 2 | magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, 3 | failure to obey the Court’s orders, and failure to prosecute. (/d. at 11.) 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 5 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 12.) The Court advised him that the “failure 6 | to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., 7 | quoting 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 issued on June 3, 2025 (Doc. 10) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to state a 15 claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ June 23, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28