# Powell v. Segerstrom

> District Court, E.D. California · October 21, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638051

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 21, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638051

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638051. Public record. Not legal advice.