Williams v. Browns et al

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/4/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Case 1:21-cv-00622-DAD-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS,

12

No. 1:21-cv-00622-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CHERYL L. BROWNS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION
(Doc. No. 5)

16
17
Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18
19

civil action against his minor child’s court-appointed counsel and his child’s other custodial

20

parent, seeking sole legal and physical custody of the minor child, along with damages. (Doc.

21

No. 3.)

22

On July 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice as to plaintiff’s federal claims and

24

without prejudice as to plaintiff’s state law claims, based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s

25

order and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 5.) Those findings and

26

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were to be

27

filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do

28

so has since passed.
1

Case 1:21-cv-00622-DAD-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

courts finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6
7

The findings and recommendations issued on July 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 5) are
adopted in full;

2.

This action is dismissed, with prejudice as to plaintiff’s federal claims and without

8

prejudice as to plaintiff’s state law claims, based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the

9

court’s order and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

10
11
12
13

3.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 4, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2