(PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor

E.D. California

(PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor

DecidedJanuary 3, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00215

StatusUnknown

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DIMITRI Z. STORM, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0215 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ) THIS CASE GOVERNOR, et al., ) 15 ) (Doc. 10) Defendants. ) 16

17 Dimitri Storm seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while housed 18 at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See generally Doc. 16.) The magistrate judge 19 screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Plaintiff failed to 20 state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 18.) After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate 21 judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 22 19 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge considered the factors set forth in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 23 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and found terminating actions are appropriate. (Id. at 3-5.) Therefore, the 24 magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 26 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 19 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 28 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 1 || time to do so expired. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 3 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 4 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 9, 2024 (Doc. 19) are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. 11 || ated: _ January 2, 2025 ( Lin fi L. wan 12 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 DIMITRI Z. STORM, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0215 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ) THIS CASE GOVERNOR, et al., ) 15 ) (Doc. 10) Defendants. ) 16

17 Dimitri Storm seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while housed 18 at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See generally Doc. 16.) The magistrate judge 19 screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Plaintiff failed to 20 state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 18.) After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate 21 judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 22 19 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge considered the factors set forth in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 23 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and found terminating actions are appropriate. (Id. at 3-5.) Therefore, the 24 magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 26 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 19 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 28 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 1 || time to do so expired. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 3 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 4 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 9, 2024 (Doc. 19) are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. 11 || ated: _ January 2, 2025 ( Lin fi L. wan 12 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC)Storm v. Office of the California Governor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pcstorm-v-office-of-the-california-governor-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack