Opinion

McCamey

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 41.3%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ROYALTON MCCAMEY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01561-JLT-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

13 v.

(Doc. 5)

14 GOOGLE and ALAMEDA NEWS

GROUP,

15

Defendants.

16

17 Royalton McCamey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action.

18 (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On November 20, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order on

21 Plaintiff’s Complaint, finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to adequately state any federal

22 claim. (See generally Doc. 4.) The magistrate judge afforded Plaintiff the option to either (1) file

23 an amended complaint, (2) file a notice to stand on the complaint subject to the magistrate judge

24 recommending the district court dismiss claims for the reasons in the screening order, or (3) file a

25 notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Id. at 5.)

26 After Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the November 20, 2025 Order, on December 29,

27 2025, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss Plaintiff’s

28 Complaint for failure to prosecute and to comply with a Court order. (Doc. 5.) The F&R

1 | contained notice that objections to the F&R were to be filed within fourteen days of service. □□□□

2 | 5-6.) In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the

3 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d.) (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

4 | 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).)

5 | Plaintiff did not file any objections and the time to do so has passed. (See docket.)

6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this

7 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and

8 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 29, 2025 (Doc. 5) are

10 ADOPTED in full.

11 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13

14

15 | IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 | Dated: _ January 26, 2026 Charis [Tourn

17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.