Phillips v. Sacramento Department of Child Support Services

E.D. California

Phillips v. Sacramento Department of Child Support Services

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 17, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-00598·Unknown

Opinion

MICHAEL ST. ANTHONY PHILLIPS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00598-KES-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF CHILD FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

SUPPORT SERVICES, et al., Doc. 7

Defendants.

Plaintiff Michael St. Anthony Phillips is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed on May 20, 2024. Doc. 1. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. On July 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and granted him leave to amend in order to cure the identified deficiencies. Doc. 6. Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint within the thirty-day deadline. On August 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. Doc. 7. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Id. at 10. Plaintiff was also informed that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights appeal. 7d. (quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). No objections have been filed and the time to do so has passed. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 23, 2024, Doc. 7, are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ January 16, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

MICHAEL ST. ANTHONY PHILLIPS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00598-KES-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF CHILD FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

SUPPORT SERVICES, et al., Doc. 7

Defendants.

Plaintiff Michael St. Anthony Phillips is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed on May 20, 2024. Doc. 1. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. On July 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and granted him leave to amend in order to cure the identified deficiencies. Doc. 6. Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint within the thirty-day deadline. On August 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. Doc. 7. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Id. at 10. Plaintiff was also informed that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights appeal. 7d. (quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). No objections have been filed and the time to do so has passed. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 23, 2024, Doc. 7, are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ January 16, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Phillips v. Sacramento Department of Child Support Services, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Phillips v. Sacramento Department of Child Support Services (Phillips v. Sacramento Department of Child Support Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related