(PC) Jones v. Adventist Health Delano Hospital

Opinion

JACQUIZ JONES, Case No. 1:25-cv-0197 JLT SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO HOSPITAL, et al., (Doc. 11)

Defendants.

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