1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MATHEW-ALLEN McCASTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00550-KES-CDB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 10 v. CLAIM

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff Mathew-Allen McCaster, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this 16 action by filing a complaint against defendant United States of America, and others unnamed in 17 the caption, on March 13, 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 18 On May 9, 2025, the action was transferred to this Court with the following pending motions: (1) 19 motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (2) emergency motion for temporary restraining order; 20 (3) motion to expedite review and request for immediate injunctive relief; and (4) motion for 21 immediate ruling on pending motions for temporary restraining order and to proceed in forma 22 pauperis. Docs. 2–7. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On September 22, 2025, the Court adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 25 recommendations in full, denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, and 26 dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an amended complaint reasserting a civil RICO 27 claim within twenty-one (21) days. Doc. 10 at 3. Plaintiff was directed to file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal and was warned that failure to do so would result in 1 | dismissal of this action.

2 The deadline for plaintiff to file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 3 | dismissal has passed and plaintiff has failed to make any filing in accordance with the Court’s 4 | order.' Asa result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may 5 | be granted. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Edwards v. Marin 6 | Park, Inc.,

, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 7 | respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court 8 | that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”’). 9 Accordingly, 10 1. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief 11 may be granted and failure to comply with a court order; and 12 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 13 14 15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 16 Dated: _ November 7, 2025 4A : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 | ' On October 27, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to seal the entire case file. Doc. 11. The assigned magistrate judge denied that motion on Novemben3, 2025. Doc. 12.