Washington v. Paca

Opinion

PERRY KENJI WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:23-cv-0673 JLT SKO

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, v. DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MARY L. PACA, et al., COURT’S ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendants. (Doc. 9) The assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim on August 17, 2023. (Doc. 7.) The magistrate judge gave Plaintiff the following options: to file an amended complaint within 30 days; to file a notice of voluntary dismissal; or to inform the Court that he wished to stand on the allegations of the complaint, though it would be subject to dismissal. (Id. at 10.) The Court informed Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with the order, the action would be subject to dismissal. (Id.) After Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the magistrate judge issued an order to Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s screening order and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 8.) The Court again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation to dismiss this action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not file any response, and the time to do so has passed. Consequently, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders and failed to prosecute the action. (Doc. 9 at 1-2.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed. (/d.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 21 days. Ud. at 2) The Court also advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Thus, any objections were due no later than November 13, 2023. To date, no objections have been filed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), the Court performed a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendation filed October 17, 2023 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED in full. 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _November 16, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE