Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01692/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01692-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Diontae Johan Duncan seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights at 

California’s Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran and Salinas Valley State Prison. (See 

Doc. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found he 

failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 11.) The Court provided relevant legal standards and granted 

Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint; stand on his complaint, though warned it may 

be dismissed for failure to state a claim; or file a notice of voluntarily dismissal. (See id. at 3-11.) The 

Court also informed Plaintiff the failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action. (Id. at 11.) 

After Plaintiff failed to respond to the Screening Order in any manner, the magistrate judge 

found Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order and failed to prosecute the action. (Doc. 14 at 1-2.) 

The magistrate judge found dismissal of the action without prejudice was appropriate, after 

considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th

Cir. 2002). (Id. at 2-3.) The Court served these Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and 

DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

T. CISNEROS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01692 JLT EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 

THIS CASE

(Doc. 14)

Case 1:23-cv-01692-JLT-EPG Document 15 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

notified him at that any objections were due within 30 days. (Id. at 4.) The Court advised him that the 

“[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 

(Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 

objections, and the time to do so expired.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 23, 2024 (Doc. 14) are 

ADOPTED in full. 

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s 

order and failure to prosecute. 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01692-JLT-EPG Document 15 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2