(PC)Dikes v. Dias et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting in full Findings and Recommendations, dismissing the action without prejudice, and directing the Clerk of Court to close this action 9 signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/2/2025. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk TEL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL GERALD DIKES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

MS. DIAZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:23-cv-0370 JLT CDB
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
THIS CASE
(Doc. 9)

Michael Gerald Dikes seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights at

18

Valley State Prison. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which

20

relief may be granted. (Doc. 8 at 4-9.) The Court provided the relevant legal standards and granted

21

Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that

22

failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

23

(Id. at 10.)

24

After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond, the magistrate judge

25

found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 9 at 1.)

26

The magistrate judge determined terminating sanctions are appropriate after considering the factors

27

identified by the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). (Id. at 2-4.)

28

Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.)
1

1

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any

2

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 4.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file any

3

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id. at 5,

4

citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections,

5

and the time to do so has passed.

6

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

7

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are

8

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

The Findings and Recommendations dated December 4, 2024 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED
in full.

10
11

2.

The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

12

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 2, 2025

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