Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00370/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00370-2/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

Michael Gerald Dikes seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights at 

Valley State Prison. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which 

relief may be granted. (Doc. 8 at 4-9.) The Court provided the relevant legal standards and granted 

Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that 

failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

(Id. at 10.) 

After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond, the magistrate judge 

found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 9 at 1.) 

The magistrate judge determined terminating sanctions are appropriate after considering the factors 

identified by the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). (Id. at 2-4.) 

Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.)

MICHAEL GERALD DIKES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MS. DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:23-cv-0370 JLT CDB

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 

THIS CASE

(Doc. 9)

Case 1:23-cv-00370-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/03/25 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

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 4.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file any 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id. at 5, 

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

and the time to do so has passed. 

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 dated December 4, 2024 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED 

in full.

2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 

Case 1:23-cv-00370-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/03/25 Page 2 of 2