Murphy Esq. Sr. v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:2021cv00870 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations Recommending that this Action be Dismissed without Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Prosecute, and Failure to Comply with a Court Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/15/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
Murphy Esq. Sr. v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY ESQ. SR., 12 No. 1:21-cv-00870-NONE-EPG Plaintiff, 13 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 17 (Doc. No. 5) 14 v. U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 15 Defendant. 18 19 Plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy Esq. Sr., doing business as Sheetmetal & Associates, is 20 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations 23 recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 24 claim, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 5.) Those 25 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 26 thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of the date of service. (Id.) 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On September 10, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations 2 which, among other things, indicated that plaintiff’s response to the court’s screening order was 3 erroneously filed as a separate case, Murphy v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate, 4 Case No. 1:21-cv01238-DAD-SKO, and was not filed in this case. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff’s 5 objections also indicated that the copy of the findings and recommendations that he received only 6 contained the first and last page. (Id.) 7 On September 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered an order granting plaintiff 8 leave to file an amended complaint or notice that he wished to stand on his original complaint 9 within thirty days. (Doc. No. 8.) The order also directed the Clerk of Court to provide plaintiff 10 with copies of the July 9, 2021 screening order and August 24, 2021 findings and 11 recommendations. (Id. at 5.) The assigned magistrate judge did not vacate the August 24, 2021 12 findings and recommendations but rather informed plaintiff that, if he filed an amended 13 complaint, the pending findings and recommendations may be vacated if appropriate. (Id. at 4.) 14 Nonetheless, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and the deadline to do so has expired. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 16 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 17 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations entered on August 24, 2021 (Doc. No. 5), are 20 21 adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, 22 23 failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge for the purpose of closing 24 25 26 27 this case and then to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.