Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01204/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01204-3/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01204-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CASE

(Doc. No. 9, 10)

Plaintiff Charles Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 February 11, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

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

claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings 

and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service of the order. (Id.) On February 14, 2020, 

plaintiff filed a document that the court construes as objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 10.) In those objections, plaintiff indicates that he “wishe[es] to 

stand on [his] complaint as is,” (id.), even though the magistrate judge has already informed him 

Case 1:19-cv-01204-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 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

2

twice that his complaint does not state any cognizable claims. (See Doc. Nos. 7, 9.) 

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

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

including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 11, 2020 (Doc. No. 9), are 

adopted;

2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01204-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 2