Torres v. Khaira

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 12 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 06/04/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD TORRES,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
JASPREET SINGH KHAIRA,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-0155 JLT SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
CLOSE THIS CASE
(Doc. 12)

16
17

Edward Torres initiated this action seeking to hold Jaspreet Singh Khaira, an employee of

18

a Valero gas station, liable for violations of his civil rights. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge

19

screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state

20

a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 10 at 3-4.) The Court granted

21

Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, and informed Plaintiff that failure to do so

22

would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id. at 5.)

23

After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s

24

order, the magistrate judge reiterated the findings that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, and

25

recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 12 at 3-5.) In addition, the

26

magistrate judge found terminating sanctions—including dismissal of the action without

27

prejudice—were appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to obey the

28

Court’s order to file an amended complaint, after considering the factors identified by the Ninth

1

Circuit. (Id. at 6-7.) The Court served these Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and

2

notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Id. at 7.) The Court advised him that

3

the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

4

appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did

5

not file objections, and the time to do so expired.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

1.

10

The Findings and Recommendations dated February 19, 2024 (Doc. 12) are
ADOPTED in full.

11

2.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

12

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2024

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