From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Epperson v. United States

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 29, 2021
1:21-cv-00493-NE-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00493-NE-SAB

06-29-2021

CHRIS EPPERSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER (DOC. NOS. 1, 7)

Plaintiff Chris Epperson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 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 March 29, 2021, plaintiff's complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff was afforded thirty (30) days within which to file an amended complaint. (Id.) He failed to do so.

On May 13, 2021, the magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. On May 24, 2021, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” (Doc. No. 8.) However, that document does not address the magistrate judge's findings, but is merely a copy of 19 U.S.C. § 1862, Safeguarding National Security.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed May 13, 2021, (Doc. No. 7), are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The complaint is DISMISSED due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a court order;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign this matter to a district judge for the purpose of closing this action; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Epperson v. United States

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 29, 2021
1:21-cv-00493-NE-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2021)
Case details for

Epperson v. United States

Case Details

Full title:CHRIS EPPERSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 29, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-00493-NE-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2021)