(PC) Ramsom v. Lucy

Opinion

DONSHEA LAVON RAMSOM, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0662 JLT BAM ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ) ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING ) THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE LUCY, et al., ) ) (Doc. 11) Defendants. ) ) )

Donshea Lavon Ramson seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights at the Porterville Developmental Center. (See Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9 at 3-6.) The Court provided the relevant legal standards and granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court. The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, reiterating the findings in the Screening Order that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 11 at 3-6.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Id. at 1-2, 6.) After considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986), the magistrate judge determined terminating sanctions are appropriate. Ud. at 6-7.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action with □□□□□□□□□ “for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, for failure to obey a court order, and for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action.” (/d. at 8.) The Court served these Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him at that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 8.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ 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 expired. 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 December 2, 2024 (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED in full. 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, failut to prosecute, and failure to obey the Court’s order. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 2, 2025 ( LAW ph L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE