(PS) Mohamed v. United States

Opinion

ABDO YAHRA MOHAMED, No. 2:18-cv-02303-TLN-EFB Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff Abdo Yahra Mohamed (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, owns a convenience store that has been permanently disqualified from participating as a retailer in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking an appeal of the disqualification under 7 U.S.C.A. § 2023(a) and declaratory judgement under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion to dismiss and the magistrate judge filed an order for Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a timely opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff failed to do so by the deadline. On January 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders and the Court’s local rules. (ECF No. 17.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Neither party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 9, 2020 (ECF No. 17), are adopted in full; and 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders and the Court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 110. Dated: February 11, 2020