Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01121/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01121-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYSHAWN HAYNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELACRUZ,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01121 JLT HBK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE THE CASE

(Doc. 13) 

Rayshawn Hayes seeks to hold the defendants, correctional officers at Kern Valley State 

Prison, liable for violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at the facility. (See generally

Doc. 1.) The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A, and found he failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 11 at 3-9.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file any amended complaint no later than December 10, 2024. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff 

did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Screening Order.

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order and failed to 

prosecute the action. (Doc. 13 at 1-2.) After considering the factors identified by the Ninth 

Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), the magistrate judge found 

terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Id. at 3-4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 

the Court dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 4.)

The Court served these Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him at 

Case 1:24-cv-01121-JLT-HBK Document 14 Filed 01/14/25 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

that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 13 at 5.) The Court advised him that the 

“[f]ailure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain 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 December 20, 2024 (Doc. 13) are 

ADOPTED in full. 

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

Court’s orders and failure to prosecute. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-01121-JLT-HBK Document 14 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 2