(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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?