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

11 MICHAEL GERALD DIKES, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0370 JLT CDB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 MS. DIAZ, et al., ) THIS CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 9) ) 16 )

17 Michael Gerald Dikes seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights at 18 Valley State Prison. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which 20 relief may be granted. (Doc. 8 at 4-9.) The Court provided the relevant legal standards and granted 21 Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that 22 failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 23 (Id. at 10.) 24 After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond, the magistrate judge 25 found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 9 at 1.) 26 The magistrate judge determined terminating sanctions are appropriate after considering the factors 27 identified by the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). (Id. at 2-4.) 28 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 2 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 4.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file any 3 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (dd. at 5, 4 || citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, 5 || and the time to do so has passed. 6 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 7 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 8 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 4, 2024 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTEI 10 in full. 11 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: _ January 2, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28