Williams v. Fresno County Department of Child Support Services et al, No. 1:2021cv00434 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:21-cv-00434-NONE-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, et al., Defendants. (Doc. No. 8) 17 18 Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found 22 that it failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was given thirty days from the 23 date of service of the screening order to file an amended complaint or to notify the assigned 24 magistrate judge that he wished to stand on his complaint, subject to findings and 25 recommendations to the district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id.) The assigned 26 magistrate judge warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with the order could result in the 27 dismissal of this case. (Id. at 15.) The thirty-day period expired, and plaintiff did not file an 28 amended complaint or notification that he wished to stand on the complaint. 1 1 Accordingly, on June 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 2 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s 3 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, failure to comply with a court order, 4 and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 8.) Those findings and recommendations were served on 5 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 6 days from the date of service. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has 7 expired. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 11 analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations entered on June 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted 14 15 in full; 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 16 upon which relief may be granted, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to 17 prosecute; and 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge for the purpose of closing the 19 20 21 case and then to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 13, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
