Guevara v. Superior Court County of San Mateo et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations and dismissingaction with prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/3/2020. 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

JOSE TIMOTEO GUEVARA,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:18-cv-00871-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
(Doc. No. 22)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Jose Timoteo Guevara is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

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

20

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On May 10, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

22

determined that it failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff was granted leave to

23

file an amended complaint within thirty days so that he could attempt to cure the deficiencies

24

identified in the screening order. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that a failure to do so would result in

25

the magistrate judge recommending that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 6.)

26

On June 10, 2019, plaintiff filed a lengthy “response to order” which included, among

27

other things, a request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint. (Doc. No. 19.) On

28

March 12, 2020, the magistrate judge granted the motion in part and ordered plaintiff to file a first
1

1

amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty days. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff

2

was again warned that a failure to comply would result in the magistrate judge recommending

3

that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. (Id. at

4

3.) To date, plaintiff has still not filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with

5

the court.

6

Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on April 24,

7

2020, recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim,

8

failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 22.) Those findings and

9

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were

10

to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 7–8.) No objections have been filed, and

11

the time to do so has now passed.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Accordingly:

16

1.

17
18

adopted in full;
2.

19
20
21
22

The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 22) are

This civil rights action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, failure
to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute; and

3.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 3, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2