Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Donald Ray Dison Jr. alleged that his civil rights were violated while he was in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The magistrate judge screened his complaint and concluded that it did not state a cognizable claim. The court nevertheless gave Dison an opportunity to correct the pleading deficiencies, directing him to file any amended complaint within 30 days and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal. Dison did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to that order.
The magistrate judge later issued findings and recommendations that repeated the screening order’s conclusions and recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge also found that Dison had failed to comply with the court’s order and had failed to prosecute the case by not filing an amended complaint, and concluded that terminating sanctions were appropriate. The resulting recommendation sought dismissal on all three grounds: noncompliance, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
The findings and recommendations were served on Dison with notice that objections were due within 14 days. He was also warned that failing to object could waive the right to challenge the magistrate judge’s factual findings on appeal. The document was returned as undeliverable on September 16, 2026, and Dison filed neither objections nor a notice changing his address. A footnote explained that Local Rule 183(b) required any address-change notice within 30 days, no later than October 16, 2026, and that absent such notice service at the only address on record was deemed fully effective under Local Rule 182(f).
The Court’s Holding
The district court stated that it conducted de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the matter, it concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. It therefore adopted the September 3, 2026 findings and recommendations in full.
The operative order dismissed the action with prejudice for three stated reasons: Dison’s failure to state a claim, his failure to comply with the court’s order, and his failure to prosecute. The dismissal thus rested both on the pleading deficiency identified during screening and on Dison’s subsequent inaction after receiving leave to amend. The order did not provide another amendment period or separately analyze potential claims; it adopted the reasoning and conclusions contained in the earlier findings and recommendations.
The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Its disposition was therefore a final dismissal of the action with prejudice, accompanied by the administrative instruction necessary to end the district-court proceedings. The order identified no remaining claim or issue for further consideration and did not grant any of the relief Dison had sought based on his allegations concerning his custody.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner civil-rights complaint that does not state a cognizable claim may lead to dismissal with prejudice after the plaintiff receives leave to amend but does not file an amended complaint.
- The district court dismissed on three independent grounds stated in its order: failure to state a claim, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute.
- The court performed de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full after finding them supported by the record and proper analysis.
- The undeliverable service did not produce a different result because the court applied its local address-notice rules and deemed service at the only address on record fully effective.
- The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case, and the order supplied no additional opportunity to amend or further proceedings on the complaint.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how the screening and findings-and-recommendations process can conclude a prisoner civil-rights action when the plaintiff does not respond to an order granting leave to amend. The district court did not rely solely on the original pleading deficiency: its express disposition combined failure to state a claim with noncompliance and failure to prosecute, and it made the dismissal with prejudice.
The service discussion also shows the practical importance of keeping a current address on file. Although the findings and recommendations were returned as undeliverable, the court relied on Local Rules 183(b) and 182(f) to treat service at the address on record as effective after no timely change-of-address notice was filed. The order itself contains only a summary of the earlier screening analysis, so the detailed claim-by-claim reasoning resides in the prior screening order and findings and recommendations rather than in this adoption order.