1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 BRENTON LIPSCOMB, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01305 JLT CDB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THIS 13 v. ) ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE, AND DIRECTING ) THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 14 FRANCES MORRIS, et al., ) ) (Doc. 7) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 Brenton Lipscomb initiated four actions—by filing four complaints and associated applications 18 to proceed in forma pauperis—on October 25, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2.) Upon the filing of the documents, 19 the Court opened Case Numbers: 1:24-cv-01305-JLT-CDB (“Action 1305”), 1:24-cv-01306-JLT- 20 CDB (“Action 1306”), 1:24-cv-01307-JLT-CDB (“Action 1307”), and 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB 21 (“Action 1308”). The assigned magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why (1) all four 22 actions should not be consolidated or, in the alternative, (2) why Actions 1305, 1306, and 1307 should 23 not be dismissed, with Action 1308 remaining as the operative case. (Doc. 3.) In response, Plaintiff 24 acknowledged the actions are, at a minimum, related and reviewed the causes of action raised. He 25 requested the four matters be consolidated but did not otherwise address the duplicative nature 26 between this matter and Action 1308. (See generally Doc. 5.) 27 The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s four complaints “concern substantially the same 28 facts arising from the same incidents concerning the same parties alleging the same causes of action.” 1 || (Doc. 7 at 5; see also 3-5.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined that “Action 1308 includes a 2 the named parties in the other three actions.” (Ud. at 3.) Further, the magistrate judge found that in 3 || response to the OSC, Plaintiff did not identify any reason why this action should be consolidated 4 rather than dismissed. (/d. at 5.) Because the matters are duplicative, the magistrate judge 5 || recommended “dismissal, rather than consolidation, as the appropriate course of action.” (/d.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 7 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 7 at 6.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 8 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the magistrate 9 judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th 10 || Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 11 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 13 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 26, 2024 (Doc. 7) are 15 ADOPTED in full. 16 2. This action is DISMISSED as duplicative of Case Number 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB. 17 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending motions and close this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _ December 22, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28