Relmon H. Davis III v. Gibson et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Expedited Review; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Re-Service ECF No. 25 on Plaintiff at his Address of Record, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/29/2020. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS.(Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RELMON H. DAVIS, III,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

v.

14

Case No. 1:18-cv-00608-DAD-BAM (PC)

GIBSON, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 26)
Defendants.

16

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RE-SERVE ECF NO. 25 ON PLAINTIFF AT
HIS ADDRESS OF RECORD

Plaintiff Relmon H. Davis, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 30, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation,

21

recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim

22

upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 25.) The findings and recommendation were served

23

on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14)

24

days after service. (Id. at 11.)

25
26
27
28

However, on November 15, 2019, the October 30, 2019 findings and recommendation
were returned by the U.S. Postal Service as “Undeliverable, Refused by Inmate.”
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for expedited review, filed on January 27,
2020. (ECF No. 26.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests that this Court expedite the review of his
1

1

second amended complaint because this action has been already been pending for more than four

2

years given that this action was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of

3

California on August 28, 2015.

4

However, as stated above, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and

5

issued findings and recommendation recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,

6

for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No.

7

25.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for expedited review is denied as moot.

8
9

Nevertheless, given that the October 30, 2019 findings and recommendation were returned
as “undeliverable,” it appears that Plaintiff did not receive the findings and recommendation.

10

Consequently, the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to re-serve the October 30, 2019

11

findings and recommendation on Plaintiff at his current address of record. Plaintiff may file

12

written objections to the October 30, 2019 findings and recommendations within fourteen (14)

13

days after the findings and recommendations are re-served.

14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for expedited review, (ECF No. 26), is DENIED as moot;

16

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve the findings and recommendation

17

issued on October 30, 2019, (ECF No. 25), on Plaintiff at his address of record;

18

and

19

3.

In light of the re-service, Plaintiff may file written objections to the October 30,

20

2019 findings and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the date that

21

the findings and recommendation are re-served.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 29, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2