(PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh

E.D. California

(PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh

DecidedApril 17, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-00255

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh ((PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALIM S. URMANCHEEV, No. 1:21-cv-00255 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 R. NDOH, et al., COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 22) 16 17 Alim S. Urmancheev is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended 19 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 Because the Court previously provided the applicable standards and Plaintiff failed to cure the 21 pleading deficiencies, the magistrate judge found further leave to amend would be futile and 22 recommended the case be dismissed. (Doc. 22.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 24 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 22 at 13.) The Court advised Plaintiff the “failure 25 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 26 14, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) The Court granted 27 several extensions of time, and ultimately ordered Plaintiff to file any objections no later than 28 April 15, 2024. (Doc. 28 at 2.) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Findings and Recommendations issued on December 7, 2023 (Doc. 22) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 18) is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _ April 17, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALIM S. URMANCHEEV, No. 1:21-cv-00255 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 R. NDOH, et al., COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 22) 16 17 Alim S. Urmancheev is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended 19 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. 20 Because the Court previously provided the applicable standards and Plaintiff failed to cure the 21 pleading deficiencies, the magistrate judge found further leave to amend would be futile and 22 recommended the case be dismissed. (Doc. 22.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 24 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 22 at 13.) The Court advised Plaintiff the “failure 25 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 26 14, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) The Court granted 27 several extensions of time, and ultimately ordered Plaintiff to file any objections no later than 28 April 15, 2024. (Doc. 28 at 2.) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Findings and Recommendations issued on December 7, 2023 (Doc. 22) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 18) is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _ April 17, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-urmancheev-v-ndoh-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack