Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00662-3/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

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

Donshea Lavon Ramson seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights at 

the Porterville Developmental Center. (See Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon 

which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9 at 3-6.) The Court provided the relevant legal standards and 

granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id.) The Court also informed 

Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be 

dismissed. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court.

The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, reiterating the findings in the 

Screening Order that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 11 at 3-6.) The magistrate 

judge also found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order.

(Id. at 1-2, 6.) After considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 

779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986), the magistrate judge determined terminating sanctions are appropriate.

DONSHEA LAVON RAMSOM,

 Plaintiff,

v.

LUCY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0662 JLT BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING 

THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

(Doc. 11)

Case 1:24-cv-00662-JLT-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/02/25 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

(Id. at 6-7.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action with prejudice 

“for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, for failure to obey a court order, and for 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.” (Id. at 8.)

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

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 8.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure 

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting 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 2, 2024 (Doc. 11) are 

ADOPTED in full. 

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, failure 

to prosecute, and failure to obey the Court’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-00662-JLT-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 2