(PC) Thomas v. Newsom et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Action, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey a Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 11/22/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PRENTICE RAY THOMAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

NEWSOM, et al.,

15

No. 1:23-cv-00622-KES-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

Defendants.
(Doc. 13)

16
17

Plaintiff Prentice Ray Thomas is a county jail inmate and former state prisoner proceeding

18

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter

19

was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule

20

302.

21

On September 13, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order granting

22

plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty

23

(30) days. Doc. 7. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would result

24

in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order

25

and for failure to state a claim. Id. at 10. Plaintiff was granted two extensions to file an amended

26

complaint, but plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and has not otherwise communicated

27

with the court since November 27, 2023.

28

On January 16, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
1

1

recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 1915A, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. Doc. 13. Those findings

3

and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto

4

were to be filed within fourteen days after service. Id. at 11–12. Plaintiff has not filed objections,

5

and the deadline to do so has passed. See docket.

6

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

7

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the

8

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper

9

analysis.

10

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

11

1.

12
13

adopted in full;
2.

14
15

The findings and recommendations issued on January 16, 2024, Doc. 13, are

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim,
failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute; and

3.

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

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 22, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2