(PC) Storm v. CSATF Warden

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

(PC) Storm v. CSATF Warden

Trial Court Opinion

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

11 DIMITRI Z. STORM, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-1274 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE ) TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, 14 CSATF WARDEN, et al., ) AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ) CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendants. ) ) (Doc. 10) 16

17 Dimitri Storm seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights related to calls 18 and use of his tablet on October 17, 2024. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge ordered 19 Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative 20 remedies (Doc. 8), and Plaintiff failed to respond to the order. Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued 21 Findings and Recommendations, finding from the face of the complaint that it was apparent Plaintiff 22 did not exhaust available administrative remedies and recommending the action be dismissed without 23 prejudice. (Doc. 10.) 24 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 25 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 10 at 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 26 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s 27 factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. at 4, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

772 F.3d 834, 838-39

(9th Cir. 28 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so expired. 1 According to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 2 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 3 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 3, 2024 (Doc. 10) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative 7 remedies. 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 2, 2025 Cerin | Tower 12 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown