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

11 DERRICK JEROME LEWIS, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0914 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ) THIS CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A ) CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., ) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DIRECTING THE 15 Defendants. ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE ) 16 ) (Docs. 1, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23) ) 17

18 Derrick Jerome Lewis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 19 pursuant to

. Plaintiff named about 40 unrelated individuals, government entities, and 20 private businesses such as Apple, Inc. and Chase Bank as defendants. (Doc. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges 21 the defendants committed identity theft, fraud, forgery, and violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due 22 Process and Equal Protection rights. (Id. at 4–7.) Plaintiff also filed several motions for injunctive 23 relief. (Docs. 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21.) The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate 24 Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 The assigned magistrate screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 26 found “Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts from which the court can draw a reasonable 27 inference that any defendant violated federal law.” (Doc. 23 at 7.) In addition, the magistrate judge 28 determined Plaintiff’s complaint lacks “facial plausibility.” (Id.) The magistrate judge found 1 || “Plaintiff's complaint consists almost entirely of fanciful and delusional allegations, amending which 2 || would be futile.” (Ud. at 10.) The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed 3 || without leave to amend. (/d. at 12.) In addition, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiffs motio 4 || for injunctive relief be denied. (/d. at 11-12.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 6 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 23 at 12.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to f 7 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkers 8 || v. Wheeler,

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

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 11 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 12 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 26, 2024 (Doc. 23) are 14 ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21) are DENIED 16 3. All pending motions and deadlines are terminated, and this case is DISMISSED with 17 prejudice for failure to state a claim. 18 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 |! Dated: _March 28, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 22 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28