(PC) Ramirez v. Doe et al

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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01379 KES BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
CLOSE THE CASE
(Doc. 7)
Israel Maldonado Ramirez is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ramirez did not pay the filing fee at the time he initiated
this case. Although directed to pay the fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
Plaintiff failed to take either action. The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to obey the
court’s order and failed to prosecute the case. Doc. 7 at 1-3. The magistrate judge found
dismissal was appropriate after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) and Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Id. at 3-4. Thus, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the
action. Id. at 4.
Case 1:25-cv-01379-KES-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/09/26 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 court served the findings and recommendations on the plaintiff and notified him that
any objections were due within 14 days.1 Doc. 7 at 4. The Court advised him that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Id., citing
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-839 (9th Cir. 2014).) He did not file objections, and the
time to do so has expired. Plaintiff also has not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to
proceed without payment.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the court conducted 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. Accordingly, the court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations dated December 3, 2025 (Doc. 7), are
ADOPTED in full.
2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The court re-served the findings and recommendations on December 16, 2025, following a
notice of change of address.
Case 1:25-cv-01379-KES-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 2