Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00813-1/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

STEPHEN HAYNES, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00813-NONE-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER,

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, & 11)

Plaintiff Stephen Haynes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing 

this action on June 11, 2019. (Doc. No. 1). The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On June 11, 2019, plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 3). On 

March 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 

recommending that the motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. (Doc. No. 10). 

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to those findings and recommendations 

within twenty-one days. 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00813-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 06/02/20 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

On April 21, 2020, the magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 

recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, failure to prosecute, and failure to 

comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file 

objections to those findings and recommendations within twenty-one days. 

The twenty-one-day periods for the filing of objections to both findings and 

recommendations have expired and plaintiff has not filed objections to either.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 

March 4, 2020 (Doc. No. 10), and April 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 11), are ADOPTED IN 

FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED; 

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) this action is

DISMISSED due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted under § 1983, as well as plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with a Court order; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this matter and then to 

CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00813-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2