Davis v. State of California et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING 43 Findings and Recommendations and dismissing action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/11/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC)

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION

D. ROBERTS.

15

Defendant.

(Doc. No. 43)

16
Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17
18

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 22, 2020, defendant D. Roberts filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No.

20
21

40.) After plaintiff failed to oppose or file a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion

22

for summary judgment, on July 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show

23

cause why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action.

24

(Doc. No. 42.) The order to show cause required plaintiff to respond within twenty-one (21)

25

days, and warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order will result in this matter being

26

dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order

27

to show cause or otherwise communicate with the court.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, on September 1, 2020, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and

2

recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a

3

court order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 43.) The pending findings and recommendations

4

were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within

5

fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the findings and

6

recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Accordingly,

11

1.

12
13

adopted in full;
2.

14
15

18
19
20

This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure
to prosecute;

3.

16
17

The findings and recommendations issued on September 1, 2020 (Doc No. 43) are

Defendant D. Robert’s pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 40) is
denied as having been rendered moot by the issuance of this order; and

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 11, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2