(PC) Papazian v. Doerer

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 18, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-01182·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES MICHAEL PAPAZIAN, Case No.: 1:24-cv-01182 JLT HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 J. DOERER, CLOSE THE CASE

15 Defendant. (Doc. 26)

16 17 James Michael Papazian seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil 18 rights while incarcerated at United States Penitentiary- Atwater, stating claims related to a 19 lockdown that occurred at the facility in the fall of 2024.1 The assigned magistrate judge found 20 Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order and failed to prosecute the action. (Doc. 26 at 1-3.) The 21 magistrate judge found dismissal of the action without prejudice was appropriate, after 22 considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 23 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). (Id. at 4-5.) 24 The Court served these Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him at 25 that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 26 at 5.) The Court advised him that the 26 “[f]ailure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of his rights on 27 1 On October 3, 2024, the Court severed Plaintiff’s claims from Benanti v. Doerer, Case No. 1:24-cv-01108- CDB (PC). (Doc. 2.) 1 | appeal.” (dd. at 6, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff 2 | did not file objections, and the time to do so expired. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 5 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 25, 2025 (Doc. 26) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to obey the 9 Court’s orders and failure to prosecute. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _August 16, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Papazian v. Doerer, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(PC) Papazian v. Doerer ((PC) Papazian v. Doerer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

J. Wilkerson v. B. Wheeler
772 F.3d 834 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)