(PC) Gaon v. Lau et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/8/2021. 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
12
13
14
15

No. 1:20-cv-00182-NONE-JLT (PC)

AMOS GAON,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. LAU, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION
(Doc. No. 13)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Amos Gaon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On August 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that

21

plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. No.

22

10.) The magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the

23

deficiencies in his pleading. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or

24

otherwise respond to the screening order.

25

Therefore, on October 15, 2020, the magistrate judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to

26

show cause in writing, within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed due to his failure

27

to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 11.) The order to show cause cautioned plaintiff that

28

“[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for

1

failure to state a claim and to obey a court order.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to the

2

order to show cause.

3

Accordingly, on November 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and

4

recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey

5

court orders and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 13.) The

6

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file

7

objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the pending findings and

8

recommendations and the time do so has passed.

9

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

10

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

11

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

12

Accordingly,

13

1.

are adopted in full;

14
15

2.

3.

20
21

The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for
purposes of closure and to close this case.

18
19

This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted; and,

16
17

The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2020 (Doc. No. 13)

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2