Davis v. Doe et al, No. 1:2019cv01299 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/17/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES L. DAVIS, 12 No. 1:19-cv-01299-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JERRY DOE, et al., (Doc. No. 7) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Charles L. Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. The 17 18 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302. 20 On May 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter 22 jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 23 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after 24 service. Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time in which to do so has since passed.1 25 ///// 26 1 27 28 The court notes that, prior to issuing the pending findings and recommendations, on April 16, 2020, the magistrate judge also ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 6), and plaintiff did not respond to that order to show cause either. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 3 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 adopted in full; 2. 8 9 10 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on May 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 7) are This action is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.
