(PC) Stevens v. Martinez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01144 JLT SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, DISMISSING 14 C. MARTINEZ, et al., THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Defendant. CLOSE THE CASE

16 (Docs. 48, 52)

17 18 Lyralisa Stevens sought to hold the defendants liable for violations of her civil rights 19 while in housed in the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison. (See Docs. 20 20, 26.) Defendants seek terminating sanctions, based upon Plaintiff’s failure to respond to a 21 discovery request despite the Court’s order directing her to do so. (Doc. 48.) After Plaintiff did 22 not file a response to the motion, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the 23 action should not be dismissed. (Doc. 51.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order. 24 The magistrate judge observed that Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions was 25 unopposed. (Doc. 52 at 1.) The magistrate judge found terminating sanctions were appropriate 26 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) after considering the factors identified by 27 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 1 | Procedure 41(b) is also appropriate as Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the action and to comply 2 | with Court orders.” (/d.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant Defendants’ 3 || motion and dismiss the action. (d. at 7.) 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and informed 5 | Plaintiff that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 52 at 7.) The Cort advised Plaintiff 6 | that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of certain rights on 7 | appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). Plaintiff did not 8 | file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 10 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to 11 | be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 13, 2025 (Doc. 52) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. 48) is GRANTED. 15 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 16 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _July 7, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28