1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KAITLYN M. STOLZE, Case No. 1:24-cv-0685 JLT EPG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY JAIL, et al., CLOSE THE CASE

15 Defendants. (Doc. 13)

16 17 Kaitlyn M. Stolze is confined in Tuolumne County Jail and seeks to hold the defendants 18 liable for violations of her civil rights related to conditions in the facility. The magistrate judge 19 screened the amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1951A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to 20 state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 11 at 3-11.) The Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to cure 21 the pleading deficiencies and ordered her to file any second amended complaint within 30 days. 22 (Id. at 11.) In the alternative, Plaintiff was informed she could choose to stand on the allegations 23 in her amended complaint, though the magistrate judge would recommend dismissal. (Id.) 24 After Plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s 25 order, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the case be 26 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s order. 27 (Doc. 13.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any objections were due within 30 days. (Id. at 4.) In addition, the Court advised Plaintiff that 1 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 2 | CUd., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file any 3 | objections, and the time to do so expired. 4 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 5 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 6 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 2, 2024 (Doc. 13) are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 10 comply with Court’s orders.! 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 B IS SO ORDERED. 14| Dated: _ November 8, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 “<T'W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court 27 | grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).” Harris v. Mangum,

(9th Cir. 2017). Thus, this dismissal 28 | qualifies as a strike under Section 1915(g).