(PC) Jones v. Plant

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS ; ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to obey Court orders and Lack of Prosecution, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/3/2021. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

Case 1:19-cv-00207-DAD-HBK Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

No. 1:19-cv-00207-DAD-HBK (PC)

ERIC JONES,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION
(Doc. No. 15)

C/O PLANT,
Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff Eric Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis proceeding

17
18

in this civil rights action under 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 November 8, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order under 28

20
21

U.S.C. § 1915A, concluding that the complaint plausibly stated a failure to protect claim but did

22

not state a cognizable excessive use of force claim against the sole named defendant. (Doc. No.

23

11 at 2.) The court provided plaintiff thirty (30) days to: (1) file an amended complaint; (2)

24

voluntarily dismiss the excessive force claim; or (3) notify the court he wishes to stand on his

25

complaint subject to dismissal of claims consistent with the order. (Id. at 5–6.) The court

26

cautioned plaintiff that his failure to respond to the court’s screening order would result in

27

dismissal of this action. (Id. at 6.)

28

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00207-DAD-HBK Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Well after the thirty (30) days period expired, the magistrate judge issued an order to show

2

cause why the court should not dismiss the case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply

3

with the court’s screening order. (See Doc. No. 12 at 1–2.) On May 18, 2020, the order to show

4

cause was returned to the court by the U.S. Postal Service marked as “Undeliverable. Refused.

5

Unable to Forward.” On November 30, 2020, the court’s order reassigning this case to the

6

undersigned was also returned as “Undeliverable. Inmate Refused.” Plaintiff has not filed an

7

updated address of record with the court, to the extent he may have been transferred or released,

8

as required by Local Rule 182(f).

9

On May 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

10

recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure

11

to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff has not objected to

12

the findings and recommendations and the opportunity to do so has since passed.

13

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

14

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and

15

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

16

Accordingly:

17

1.

18
19

adopted in full;
2.

20
21
22
23
24

The findings and recommendations issued on May 3, 2021 (Doc. No. 15) are

This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to obey court
orders and lack of prosecution; and

3.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 3, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2