(PC) Jones v. Adventist Health Delano Hospital

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUIZ JONES, Case No. 1:25-cv-0197 JLT SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 ADVENTIST HEALTH DELANO CLOSE THE CASE HOSPITAL, et al., 15 (Doc. 11)

16 Defendants.

17 18 Jacquiz Jones seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights, asserting 19 that he a correctional officer used excessive force when he dropped Plaintiff while attempting to 20 pick him up, and he suffered verbal harassment. (Doc. 1 at 4, 8-9.) In addition, Plaintiff asserts 21 that he was not instructed on aftercare for his shoulder that had been dislocated, and as a result 22 Plaintiff “unknowingly removed [his] sling & now [his] arm keeps popping out of place.” (Id. at 23 3.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 24 found he failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 8 at 4-9.) The Court granted Plaintiff the 25 opportunity to amend his complaint. (Id. at 9.) However, Plaintiff did not file an amended 26 complaint. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed 27 (Doc. 9), and Plaintiff again did not respond. 28 After Plaintiff failed to respond, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. (Doc. 11.) 1 | In doing so, the magistrate judge reiterated the findings that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable 2 | claim. (/d. at 4-9.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s 3 | screening order and failed to prosecute the action. (Ud. at 9.) The magistrate judge considered the 4 | factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 5 | 1986), and found terminating sanctions are appropriate for Plaintiff's inaction. (/d. at 10-11.) 6 | Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action for Plaintiffs failure 7 | to state a claim, failure to obey the Court’s orders, and failure to prosecute. (/d. at 11.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 9 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 12.) The Court advised him that the “failure 10 || to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., 11 | quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 12 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 14 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 15 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 22, 2025 (Doc. 11) are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim, 19 failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 53 Dated: _ June 18, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28