(PC) Navarro v. StClair et al

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING 44 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing the Action With Prejudice signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/6/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GILBERT NAVARRO,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. ST. CLAIR, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-0524 JLT SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
(Doc. 44)

Defendants.

16
17

Gilbert Navarro asserts he suffered violations of his Eighth Amendment rights while

18

incarcerated. (See generally Doc. 8.) Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc.

19

38.) In the meanwhile, the assigned magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the

20

action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. (Doc. 42.) Although Plaintiff did not

21

respond to the order, the magistrate judge discharged the order to show cause and ordered

22

Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a notice of non-opposition,

23

within 30 days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 43 at 3.) In addition, the Court advised

24

Plaintiff that the “failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that this

25

case be dismissed with prejudice for a failure to prosecute.” (Id., emphasis in original.)

26

Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order.

27
28

The magistrate judge then found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to obey
the Court’s order. (Doc. 44.) Therefore, the Court recommended the action be dismissed with

1

prejudice. (Id. at 4.) The Court granted 14 days from the date of service for Plaintiff to file any

2

objections to the Findings and Recommendations and advised him that the “failure to file

3

objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id., citing

4

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

5

(9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time do so has passed.

6

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this

7

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and

8

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Based on the foregoing, the

9

Court ORDERS:

10

1.

The findings and recommendations issued on June 14, 2022 (Doc. 44) are
ADOPTED in full.

11
12

2.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

13

3.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) is terminated as moot.

14

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 6, 2022

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