(PC) Morgan v. Davies

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MIKE MORGAN, No. 2:24-cv-1039 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LT. DAVIES, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the court on April 8, 2024. The court’s records reveal that plaintiff is proceeding in another action in this court based on virtually identical allegations. (Case no. 2:23-cv-1955 DAD DMC P).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed.

22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. 25 P. 41(b).

26 //// A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 28 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this || case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served || with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court.

4 || The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th || Cir. 1991).

9 || Dated: April 15, 2024 4 aA 10 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM M UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || Morg1039.dup 14 2