Lorenz, et al. v. Shepard, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing the Action With Prejudice, and Directing the Clerk of Court to Close This Case, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/8/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALICIA LORENZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

v.
M. SHEPARD, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00604 JLT EPG
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
CLOSE THIS CASE
(Docs. 8, 9.)

16
17

Alicia Lorenz and Patrick Lorenz, Sr. seek to hold M. Shepard, a correctional officer,

18

liable for violations of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 9, 10.) Plaintiffs

19

assert Shephard unlawfully telephoned Plaintiffs regarding an incident at Corcoran State Prison in

20

which their son was hurt and “would not give any details.” (Doc. 9 at 5; see also Doc. 10 at 5;

21

Doc. 1 at 3.) The magistrate judge reviewed the separate pleadings filed by Plaintiffs and

22

considered the documents together as consolidated amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) The

23

magistrate judge found Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of their

24

constitutional rights, and recommended the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 3-6.)

25

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiffs and notified them that

26

any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 11 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiffs that the

27

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.”

28
1

1

(Id. at 6-7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiffs did not

2

file objections, and the time to do so has passed.

3

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

4

case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and

5

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Though the Court appreciates

6

how distressing it was to the plaintiffs to receive the phone call at issue, that conduct does not

7

violate the Constitution. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

8

1.

9

The Findings and Recommendations issued March 4, 2024 (Doc. 11) are
ADOPTED in full.

10

2.

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

11

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2024

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