Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00718/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00718-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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

LIAM MEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIMON CHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00718-DC-JDP (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 6)

Plaintiff Liam Meyer is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. This 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302.

On December 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute this action, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to state a 

cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 6.) Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s order 

dated October 2, 2024, in which Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed due to his failure to state a 

cognizable claim and Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30)

days. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff did not thereafter file a first amended complaint. Consequently, the 

assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show cause on November 19, 2024, directing 

Plaintiff to explain why the court should not dismiss the case due to his failure to file an amended 

Case 2:23-cv-00718-DC-JDP Document 7 Filed 01/13/25 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

complaint or notify the court of his intent to not file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff 

did not thereafter file a response to the order to show cause or otherwise communicate with the 

court.

The pending findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice 

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 6 at 

3.) 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 December 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are 

adopted in full; 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

this action, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to state a cognizable 

claim; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:23-cv-00718-DC-JDP Document 7 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2