Williams v. Kings County Superior Court

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 AHKEEM D. WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00854-ADA-SAB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTING 11 v. CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE DOCKET TO REFLECT 12 KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO al., RULE 41(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF 13 CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendants. 14 (ECF Nos. 4, 5)

15 16 Plaintiff Ahkeem D. Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 17 initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on June 5, 2023, against the Kings 18 County Superior Court, Coney P., a supervising court clerk, and a DOE court clerk (collectively, 19 “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) On July 5, 2023, the Court screened the complaint and issued 20 findings and recommendations to dismiss the case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 21 (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff’s objections were due by July 26, 2023. (See id. at 7.) 22 On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal. (ECF No. 5.) In light of the notice 23 of dismissal, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of 24 San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed without prejudice. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 26 1. The July 5, 2023 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are VACATED; and 27 /// /// 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to close the case and adjust the 2 docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule (a). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ July 18, 2023

‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28