(PC) Sahakyan v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2019cv00694 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action with Prejudice, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/4/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN SAHAKYAN, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 12) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Karen Sahakyan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 28, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. 23 (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint attempting to cure the 24 deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge within thirty days after service of that screening 25 order. (Id. at 8–9.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file an amended complaint in 26 compliance with the screening order would result in a recommendation that this action be 27 dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id.) More than two months have passed since the issuance 28 of that screening order and plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or indicate that he 1 1 2 wishes to proceed with his complaint. Therefore, on January 8, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 3 recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 4 cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, failure to obey a court order, and failure to 5 prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 12.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 6 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 7 days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have 8 been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 11 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. 14 15 adopted in full; 2. 16 17 18 19 The findings and recommendations issued on January 8, 2020 (Doc No. 12) are This action is dismissed 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.