Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01937/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01937-5/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

TOMMY JAY EUGENE JOSEPH REID,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVERA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01937-DAD-SCR (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 15)

Plaintiff Tommy Jay Eugene Joseph Reid is a county detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 September 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. No. 15 at 

1.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that the previously assigned magistrate judge had 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and had granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint

within thirty days, and that plaintiff had failed to do so. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff had been cautioned 

that failure to file an amended complaint within that thirty-day period “may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Doc. No. 13 at 5); see also L.R. 110 (“Failure 

Case 2:23-cv-01937-DAD-SCR Document 16 Filed 12/19/24 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

. . . to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by 

the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 

the Court.”).

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. 

(Doc. No. 15 at 1.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, 

and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 17, 2024 (Doc. No. 15) 

are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01937-DAD-SCR Document 16 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2