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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?