(PC) Ramirez v. Quick, et al., No. 1:2022cv01610 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Action signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 05/31/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ramirez v. Quick, et al. Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01610-ADA-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING ACTION 10 11 v. 12 J. QUICK, et al., (ECF No. 13) 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Israel Maldonado Ramirez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 19, 2023, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint 20 failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 9.) The Court ordered 21 Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty days and warned, “If Plaintiff fails to file 22 an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the Court will recommend to a district 23 judge that this action be dismissed consistent with the reasons stated in this order.” (Id. at 6.) 24 When Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued an order 25 to show cause within fourteen days as to why the Court should not dismiss his case. (ECF No. 26 10.) Again, the Magistrate Judge warned, “Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result 27 in a recommendation to dismiss the action for the reasons stated above.” (Id.) 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause. On March 23, 2023, the Magistrate 1 2 Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the action for failure to 3 state a claim, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 13.) The 4 findings and recommendations contained notice that Plaintiff had fourteen days within which to 5 file objections. On March 31, 2023, April 10, 2023, and April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed affidavits which 6 7 the Court construes as objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16) 8 In these objections, Plaintiff asks the Court to consider this complaint because this Court 9 approved his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Plaintiffs arguments are unpersuasive 10 as the Court’s granting IFP status does not require the Court to address the merits of Plaintiff’s 11 claim. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 13 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 14 objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 15 proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. adopted, in full; 18 19 2. The action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to obey a court order; and 20 21 The findings and recommendations issued on March 23, 2023, (ECF No. 13), are 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and to close the case. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 31, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
