(PC)Valdez v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10

11 JORGE LUIS VALDEZ, JR., ) Case No.: 1: 23-cv-1729 JLT HBK (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., ) 15 ) (Doc. 24) Defendants. ) 16 )

17 Jorge Luis Valdez initiated this action seeking to hold the defendants liable for violations of his 18 civil rights while incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution, Calipatria State Prison, and 19 High Desert State Prison. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted. (Doc. 22 at 6-10.) In the Screening Order, the Court granted Plaintiff three options: (1) file 22 an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies; (2) notify the Court he chose to proceed 23 with his original complaint, although also warned it was subject to dismissal; or (3) voluntarily dismiss 24 the action. (Id. at 11.) 25 After Plaintiff failed to respond to the Screening Order in any way, the magistrate judge 26 recommended the action “be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 27 and failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 24 at 4-5, emphasis omitted.) In finding terminating sanctions were 28 appropriate, the magistrate judge considered the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. 1 || Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and found the factors weighed in favor of dismissal. 2 || Ud. at 3-4.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 4 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 25 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “[flailure to 5 || file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 6 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and □□ 7 || time to do so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 9 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 10 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 10, 2024 (Doc. 24) are ADOPTE 12 in full. 13 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 Dated: _ July 2, 2024 ( Li pA L. warm 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28