(PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor

E.D. California

(PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 3, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-00215·Unknown

Opinion

DIMITRI Z. STORM, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0215 JLT HBK ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE GOVERNOR, et al., ) ) (Doc. 10) Defendants. )

Dimitri Storm seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See generally Doc. 16.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 18.) After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 19 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge considered the factors set forth in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and found terminating actions are appropriate. (Id. at 3-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 19 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 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 dated December 9, 2024 (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED in full. 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. ated: _ January 2, 2025 ( Lin fi L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

DIMITRI Z. STORM, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0215 JLT HBK ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE GOVERNOR, et al., ) ) (Doc. 10) Defendants. )

Dimitri Storm seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See generally Doc. 16.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 18.) After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 19 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge considered the factors set forth in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and found terminating actions are appropriate. (Id. at 3-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 19 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 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 dated December 9, 2024 (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED in full. 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. ated: _ January 2, 2025 ( Lin fi L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

(PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor ((PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related