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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?