Dubrin et al v. Bonilla
ORDER Adopting 167 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING Plaintiff Hall's Request to Rescind Settlement signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DUBRIN et al.,
MICHAEL STAINER et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF HALL’S REQUEST TO
(Doc. Nos. 155, 159, 160, 167, 168, 170)
This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, involving multiple plaintiffs and
multiple defendants, which was filed on September 2, 2011. The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 6, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
recommending that plaintiffs Joaquin Coronado and Aaron Prange be dismissed from this action
due to their failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. No. 167.) That recommendation was based
upon the fact the court had granted their counsel’s motion to withdraw because the two plaintiffs
had ceased communicating with their counsel and then failed to respond to the court’s order to
show cause as to why they should not be dismissed as having abandoned the litigation. (Id.) The
day after the findings and recommendations were issued, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to
vacate his motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Coronado because the two had resumed
contact. (Doc. No. 160.) Consequently, on May 2, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order (1)
striking its prior order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw—solely as to plaintiff Coronado;
(2) discharging its prior order to show cause—solely as to plaintiff Coronado; and (3) striking
portions of the findings and recommendations—solely as to plaintiff Coronado. (Doc. No. 170.)
That order was served on the same date and gave plaintiff Prange twenty-one additional days in
which to file objections to the April 6, 2017 findings and recommendations. (Id.) Despite lapse
of more than the allowed time, no objections have been filed. Local Rule 304(b) & (d).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1. The April 7, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 167) are adopted as
modified by the court’s May 2, 2017 (Doc. No. 170);
2. Plaintiff Aaron Prange and all claims brought on his behalf are dismissed with
prejudice from this action due to his failure to prosecute this action;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate plaintiff Aaron Prange from the docket
of this action;
4. The remaining parties are ordered to file a joint status report within thirty days of the
date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 13, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?