Raymond v. Martin

Filing 92

ORDER ADOPTING 89 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Plaintiff James Raymond's Claims without Prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/6/2021. James Raymond (an individual and successions in interest to decedent Augustus Joshua Crawford) Terminated. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES RAYMOND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
WARREN MARTIN,

15

(Doc. No. 89)
INGRID CRAWFORD SMITH, et al.,

18

Plaintiffs,

19
20

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF JAMES RAYMOND’S CLAIMS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendant.

16
17

No. 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT

v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

21

Defendants.

22
23

A.J.C.,
Plaintiff,

24
25
26
27

v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

28
1

1

On March 5, 2018, plaintiff James Raymond, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action

2

alleging that defendants are liable for the wrongful death of his son, Augustus Joshua Crawford.

3

(Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

5

On September 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

6

recommendations recommending that “[b]ecause Raymond has failed to comply with the Local

7

Rules and failed to prosecute his claims and has absented himself from this litigation,” plaintiff

8

Raymond’s claims be dismissed without prejudice and that this action proceed only with the

9

claims of the remaining plaintiffs and with James Raymond joined as a nominal defendant. (Doc.

10

No. 89.) Specifically, plaintiff has failed to “keep the court and opposing parties advised as to his

11

[] current address,” as required by Local Rule 183, and since June 2021, all mail sent by the court

12

to plaintiff at his address of record has been returned by the U.S. Postal Service as

13

“Undeliverable: Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward.” See L.R. 183(b). The

14

pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

15

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 89 at 5.) On

16

October 12, 2021, those findings and recommendations mailed to plaintiff was also returned to

17

the court as “Undeliverable: Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward.” To date, no

18

objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so

19

has now passed.

20

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

21

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

22

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

23

Accordingly,

24

1.

25

The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 89)
are adopted in full;

26

2.

27

/////

28

Plaintiff James Raymond’s claims in this action are dismissed without prejudice;

/////
2

1

3.

2
3

and A.J.C., with James Raymond joined as a nominal defendant; and
4.

4
5
6

This action proceeds only on the claims of plaintiffs Ingrid Crawford Smith, A.C.,

The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that plaintiff
James Raymond has been terminated as a plaintiff in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 6, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3