(PC)Valdez v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING the Action Without Prejudice, and DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to Close this Case, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/2/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

JORGE LUIS VALDEZ, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 1: 23-cv-1729 JLT HBK (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
CLOSE THIS CASE
(Doc. 24)

Jorge Luis Valdez initiated this action seeking to hold the defendants liable for violations of his

18

civil rights while incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution, Calipatria State Prison, and

19

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

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

21

granted. (Doc. 22 at 6-10.) In the Screening Order, the Court granted Plaintiff three options: (1) file

22

an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies; (2) notify the Court he chose to proceed

23

with his original complaint, although also warned it was subject to dismissal; or (3) voluntarily dismiss

24

the action. (Id. at 11.)

25

After Plaintiff failed to respond to the Screening Order in any way, the magistrate judge

26

recommended the action “be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders

27

and failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 24 at 4-5, emphasis omitted.) In finding terminating sanctions were

28

appropriate, the magistrate judge considered the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v.
1

1

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and found the factors weighed in favor of dismissal.

2

(Id. at 3-4.)

3

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

4

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 25 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “[f]ailure to

5

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

6

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

7

time to do so has passed.

8
9
10
11

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.
Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are
supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 10, 2024 (Doc. 24) are ADOPTED
in full.

12
13

2.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

14

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 2, 2024

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