(PC) Stevens v. Martinez

Opinion

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01144 JLT SKO (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, DISMISSING C. MARTINEZ, et al., THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO Defendant. CLOSE THE CASE

(Docs. 48, 52)

Lyralisa Stevens sought to hold the defendants liable for violations of her civil rights while in housed in the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison. (See Docs. 20, 26.) Defendants seek terminating sanctions, based upon Plaintiff’s failure to respond to a discovery request despite the Court’s order directing her to do so. (Doc. 48.) After Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. (Doc. 51.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order. The magistrate judge observed that Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions was unopposed. (Doc. 52 at 1.) The magistrate judge found terminating sanctions were appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). (Id. at 2- 6.) In addition, the magistrate judge found that “[d]ismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is also appropriate as Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the action and to comply with Court orders.” (/d.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the action. (d. at 7.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and informed Plaintiff that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 52 at 7.) The Cort advised Plaintiff that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (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 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 13, 2025 (Doc. 52) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. 48) is GRANTED. 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated: _July 7, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE