(PC) Davis v. Mendoza, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/2020. 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

CHARLES L. DAVIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:19-cv-01142-DAD-EPG (PC)

v.
DEPARTMENT OF ADULT PAROLE
OPPERATIONS HANFORD,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY COURT
ORDERS

Defendants.

16

(Doc. No. 28)

17
Plaintiff Charles L. Davis1 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18
19

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

20

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

21

On June 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

22

recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and

23

failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. No. 28.) Specifically, plaintiff failed to appear on May 13,

24

2020 at the mandatory Initial Scheduling Conference as required by the court’s order setting the

25

conference (Doc. No. 21), and plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause “why

26

he should not be sanctioned up to and including dismissal of this action for failing to appear at the

27
28

1

Plaintiff Davis was a state prisoner at the time he filed his complaint, but his address of record
indicates that he is no longer incarcerated. (See Doc. No. 28 at 1, n.1.)
1

1

Initial Scheduling Conference, for failing to file a scheduling conference statement, and for

2

failing to make initial disclosures,” (Doc. No. 26). (Doc. No. 28 at 1–2.) Those pending findings

3

and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail at his address of record on June 9, 2020

4

and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service

5

of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the pending findings

6

and 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), the court has conducted a

8

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

9

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

10

Accordingly,

11

1.

12
13

adopted in full;
2.

14
15
16
17

The findings and recommendations issued on June 9, 2020 (Doc No. 28) are

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

3.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 13, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2