Dustin v. Gipson et al
Filing
61
AMENDED ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations, and Dismissing Action for Repeated Failure to Follow Court Orders signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/28/15. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DALE OWEN DUSTIN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00757 AWI DLB PC
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DISMISSING ACTION FOR REPEATED
FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDERS
GIPSON, et al.,
(Document 57)
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and
17
18
in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on
19
December 13, 2014, and it was transferred to this Court on May 16, 2014. The matter was referred
20
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this action
21
22
be dismissed for Plaintiff’s repeated failures to follow Court orders. The Findings and
23
Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the Findings
24
and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. After this time period had passed
25
without objections, the Court issued an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations and
26
dismissed the case on July 20, 2015.
27
///
28
///
1
1
On July 24, 2015, the Court docketed a motion for an extension of time to file objections.
2
The motion was signed by Plaintiff on June 18, 2015. The reason for the delay in receipt and/or
3
docketing is unknown.
4
5
The Court now issues this amended order adopting the June 5, 2015, Findings and
Recommendations.
6
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de
7
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings
8
and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
9
Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file objections is simply another delay on his part to
10
comply with Court orders. As the Court noted in the Findings and Recommendations, this action has
11
been pending for over one year and one half without an operative complaint, and Plaintiff continues
12
to refuse to comply with Court orders.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 5, 2015, are ADOPTED in full;
15
2.
All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and
16
3.
This action is DISMISSED.
17
18
19
This terminates this action in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
July 28, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
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?