Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02303/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02303-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

ABDO YAHRA MOHAMED,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-02303-TLN-EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff Abdo Yahra Mohamed (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, owns a convenience store 

that has been permanently disqualified from participating as a retailer in the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program. On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking an appeal 

of the disqualification under 7 U.S.C.A. § 2023(a) and declaratory judgement under 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2201. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the 

second cause of action. (ECF No. 13.) 

Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion to dismiss and the magistrate judge filed an order for 

Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a timely opposition 

or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff failed to do so 

by the deadline. On January 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 

recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders 

and the Court’s local rules. (ECF No. 17.) The findings and recommendations were served on 

Case 2:18-cv-02303-TLN-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/12/20 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

the parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Neither party has filed objections 

to the Findings and Recommendations.

Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 9, 2020 (ECF No. 17), are 

adopted in full; and

2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders 

and the Court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-02303-TLN-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 2