Opinion

Powell v. Segerstrom

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 21, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.3%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SHANNON R. POWELL, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0969 JLT SKO

)

12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE

13 v. ) ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING

) THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE

14 THE UNITED STATES, et al., )

) (Doc. 4)

15 Defendants. )

)

16 )

17 Shannon R. Powell is proceeding pro se in this action against the following defendants: The

18 United States, Tuolumne County Judge Donald Segerstrom, Governor Gavin Newsom, Vice President

19 Kamala Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, “Ex-Governor” Edward Brown, “The Federal

20 Judicial Judges,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, and “U.S. Marshals.” (Doc. 1 at 1–5.) Plaintiff’s

21 complaint purports to allege claims for “rights of a citizen,” “rights of a holy ghost,” and “rights of my

22 own mind and thought.” (Id.)

23 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may

24 be granted, and the “complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional allegations with no basis in

25 law and no plausible supporting facts.” (Doc. 4 at 3; see also id. at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate

26 judge recommended Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 3-4.) The Court served

27 the Findings and Recommendations upon Plaintiff and notified him that any objections must be filed

28 within 30 days of the date of service. (Id. at 4.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that the “failure to

1 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing

2 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file any objections, and tk

3 || time to do so has expired.

4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havin

5 || carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are

6 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

7 1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED in full.

8 2. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.

9 3. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous.

10 4. The Clerk of Court shall close this action.

11

12 IS SO ORDERED.

13 || Dated: _ October 18, 2024 Charis [Tourn

14 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.