1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LLOYD R. TILLET, No. 1:25-cv-00996-KES-BAM (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
13 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
14 MARTINEZ, et al., CASE
15 Defendants. Doc. 16
16
17 Lloyd R. Tillet is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 On June 11, 2026, the magistrate judge screened the second amended complaint pursuant
20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Doc. 16. The magistrate judge found Tillet failed to state a cognizable
21 claim under § 1983 and recommended dismissal with prejudice. Id. at 3-6. The Court served the
22 findings and recommendations on Tillet and informed him that any objections were due within 14
23 days. Id. at 6. The Court also advised that a failure to file timely objections may result in the
24 waiver of certain rights on appeal. Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 722 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th
25 Cir. 2014)). Tillet filed a notice of change of address on June 18, 2026. Doc. 17. On June 22,
26 2026, the Court re-served the findings and recommendations on Tillet at his updated address. See
27 docket. On July 16, 2026, the Court granted Tillet a 30-day extension of time to file objections to
28 the findings and recommendations. Doc. 19. Despite the extension, Tillet did not file objections
1 | and the time to do so has expired.
2 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review.
3 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are
4 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court ORDERS:
5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 11, 2026 (Doc. 16) are ADOPTED
6 in full.
7 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim upon
8 which relief may be granted.
9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
10
1]
12 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _
13 Dated: _ August 28, 2026 | |
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.