Francisco Ledesma v. Laurel et al

Filing 64

ORDER Adopting the Report and Recommendation: Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 56 . (See document for further details.) (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FRANCISCO LEDESMA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
DR. LAUREL (Nurse Practitioner),
)
DR. WEEKS (Medical Manager),
)
DR. ESTRADA (Medical Supervisor), )
and SST Officer Wright, each in his
)
official and individual capacities,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
)

No. LA CV 16-01350-VBF-FFM
ORDER
Adopting the Report and Recommendation:
Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice;
Directing Entry of Separate Judgment;
Terminating and Closing the Case (JS-6)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the civil-rights complaint
(CM/ECF Document (“Doc”) 1), the Answer filed by defendant “SST Officer Wright” (Doc
23), the Answer filed by defendants Laurel and Weeks and Estrada (Doc 24), the summaryjudgment motion filed by defendants Laurel and Weeks and Estrada on May 26, 2017 (Doc
51) and supporting declarations (Docs 51-1 through 51-7), defendant Wright’s notice
joining in the summary-judgment motion (Doc 53), defendants’ June 21, 2017 notice
observing that plaintiff failed to file a response to the summary-judgment motion (Doc 55),
the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the United States Magistrate Judge
on Jun 23, 2017 (Doc 56), and the notices showing that the R&R and the accompanying
Notice of Filing of R&R (Doc 57) were returned from plaintiff’s address of record.

1

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R, nor has he sought an extension of the

2

objection deadline, updated his address, or communicated with the Court in any other way

3

since the R&R issued. Finding no error of law, fact, or logic in the R&R, the Court will

4

adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and implement his

5

recommendations.

6
7

ORDER

8

Pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority and its authority under Federal Rule of

9

Civil Procedure 41 and Central District of California (“C.D. Cal.”) Local Civil Rule

10

(“LCivR”) 41-1, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to plaintiff’s lack of

11

prosecution (including his failure to timely update his address as required by C.D. Cal.

12

LCivR 5-4.8.1 and LCivR 83-2.4).

13
14

Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
58(a), judgment will be entered as a separate document.

15

This case shall be TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: November 20, 2017

19
20

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
Senior United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2