(PC) Wilks v. Chowchilla Women Facility

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations and dismissing action signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/18/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LETHA PEARL WILKS,

12
13
14

No. 1:19-cv-01640-DAD-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
CHOWCHILLA WOMEN FACILITY,

15

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION
(Doc. No. 14)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Letha Pearl Wilks is a civil detainee at Patton State Hospital proceeding pro se

19

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter

20

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

21

Rule 302.

22

On October 20, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

23

found that the allegations in the complaint were vague and unintelligible, and that plaintiff failed

24

to state any cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 12 at 4.) In that screening order, the court provided

25

plaintiff guidance regarding the pleading and legal standards applicable to the claims she was

26

attempting to assert in her complaint, and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended

27

complaint within thirty (30) days from service of that screening order. (Id. at 10–11.) To date,

28

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or sought an extension of time in which to do so.
1

1

Accordingly, on January 11, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

2

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a

3

cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 14.) Those pending findings and

4

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were

5

to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections to the

6

pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now

7

passed.

8

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

9

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

10

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11

Accordingly,

12

1.

13

The findings and recommendations issued on January 11, 2021 (Doc No. 14) are
adopted in full;

14

2.

This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and

15

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 18, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2