Bettencourt v. Parks et al

Filing 112

ORDER ADOPTING 109 Findings and Recommendations to dismiss action for failure to prosecute signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 4/1/2024. CASE CLOSE. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PARKER, et al.,

15

No. 1:16-cv-00150-KES-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(Doc. 109)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Gary Ray Bettencourt is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 1, 2023, this case was

19

temporarily reassigned to No District Court Judge (NODJ). Doc. 108. On December 15, 2023,

20

the Court’s order reassigning the case was returned as “Undeliverable, Inactive.” Plaintiff’s

21

notice of change of address was therefore due on or before February 16, 2024. L.R. 183(b).

22

Plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address or otherwise communicate with the Court.

23

Accordingly, on February 29, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and

24

recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s

25

failure to prosecute. Doc. 109. Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties

26

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after

27

service. Id. at 3. On March 14, 2024, the findings and recommendations served on Plaintiff’s

28

address of record were returned as “Undeliverable, Inactive.” Pro se parties are “under a
1

1

continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address.” E.D. Cal. R.

2

182(f). “Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the . . . pro se party

3

shall be fully effective.” Id. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff’s

4

address of record and contained notice that Plaintiff had fourteen days within which to file

5

objections. Doc. 109 at 3.

6
7
8

No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. Plaintiff has not
otherwise communicated with the Court regarding this action.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of

9

the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate

10

Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11
12
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 29, 2024, Doc. 109, are
ADOPTED IN FULL;

14

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and

15

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close this case.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 1, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2