(PS) Douglas v. Warner Brothers Films

Opinion

AN JON MARQUIS DOUGLAS, No. 2:23-cv-02320-TLN-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant.

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint for a civil case. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). By order filed on November 6, 2023 (ECF No. 3), the undersigned screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), advised plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint, and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time granted for plaintiff to file an amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or sought an extension of time to do so. For the reasons set forth in the screening order filed on November 6, 2023 (ECF No. 3), the complaint does not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a claim. Plaintiff was previously informed of the deficiencies in the complaint and elected not to amend. Plaintiff also has not identified facts that could be alleged in an amended complaint to state a plausible claim. Thus, the complaint should be dismissed without further leave to amend. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: December 28, 2023 / ae □□ / a Ly a CAROLYN K DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8.Douglas23cv2320.fi