(PC)Lewis v. Allison et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING in Full the 23 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING this Case for Failure to State a Claim without Leave to Amend, DENYING Plaintiff's 12 14 16 17 18 20 21 Motions for Injunctive Relief, and DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to CLOSE the CASE signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/28/2024. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DERRICK JEROME LEWIS,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:23-cv-0914 JLT EPG
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
THIS CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND,
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DIRECTING THE
CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE
(Docs. 1, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23)

17
18

Derrick Jerome Lewis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff named about 40 unrelated individuals, government entities, and

20

private businesses such as Apple, Inc. and Chase Bank as defendants. (Doc. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges

21

the defendants committed identity theft, fraud, forgery, and violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due

22

Process and Equal Protection rights. (Id. at 4–7.) Plaintiff also filed several motions for injunctive

23

relief. (Docs. 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21.) The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate

24

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

25

The assigned magistrate screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and

26

found “Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts from which the court can draw a reasonable

27

inference that any defendant violated federal law.” (Doc. 23 at 7.) In addition, the magistrate judge

28

determined Plaintiff’s complaint lacks “facial plausibility.” (Id.) The magistrate judge found
1

1

“Plaintiff’s complaint consists almost entirely of fanciful and delusional allegations, amending which

2

would be futile.” (Id. at 10.) The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed

3

without leave to amend. (Id. at 12.) In addition, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s motions

4

for injunctive relief be denied. (Id. at 11-12.)

5

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

6

objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 23 at 12.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file

7

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson

8

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do

9

so has passed.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 26, 2024 (Doc. 23) are
ADOPTED in full.

14
15

2.

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21) are DENIED.

16

3.

All pending motions and deadlines are terminated, and this case is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

17
18

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 28, 2024

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2