(PC) Johnson v. Nugent

Opinion

SHAWN PIERRE JOHNSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00949 JLT BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO NUGENT, et al., CLOSE THIS CASE Defendants. (Doc. 13) Pierre Johnson is a state prisoner and seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. (See generally Doc. 11.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (Doc. 12.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and granted him leave to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court. (Id. at 3-9.) In the alternative, the Court informed Plaintiff that he could file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 9.) After Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order—either by filing an amended complaint or a voluntary dismissal—the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. (Doc. 13.) In doing so, the magistrate judge reiterated the findings that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Id. at 4-9.) In addition, the magistrate judge round Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s screening order and failed to prosecute the action. (Id. at 9-10.) The magistrate judge considered the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986), and found terminating sanctions are appropriate for Plaintiff's inaction. □□□□ at 10-11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action “with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, for failure to obey a court order, and for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action.” (Jd. at 11.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 13 at 11.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the magistrate judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 22, 2025 (Doc. 13) are ADOPTED in full. 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated: _May 19, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE