(PC) Clark v. Eaton, et al.
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED due to plaintiffs failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/8/2020. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERNEST E. CLARK, IV,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:20-cv-00874-DAD-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK EATON, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY A COURT
ORDER
(Doc. No. 15)
17
18
Plaintiff Ernest E. Clark is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
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 August 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint in this
22
action and found that he had stated cognizable Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement
23
claims against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2, but had failed to state any other cognizable
24
claims against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2, or any other named defendants. (Doc. No. 11
25
at 12–13.) Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days from the date of service of that screening order to
26
either file a first amended complaint or notify the court of his decision to proceed only on the
27
claims found by the screening order to be cognizable against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2.
28
(Id. at 13–14.) The court served the screening order on plaintiff by mail on August 13, 2020.
1
1
Despite requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to do so (Doc. Nos. 12, 13),
2
plaintiff did not file a first amended complaint, nor did he notify the court of his decision to
3
proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2.
4
Accordingly, on November 5, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and
5
recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a
6
court order and failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. No. 15.) Those findings and
7
recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail on November 5, 2020 and contained notice
8
that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the findings
9
and recommendations. (Id. at 3–4.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and
10
11
recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
12
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that
13
the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
14
Accordingly,
15
1.
16
17
adopted in full;
2.
18
19
20
21
The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 15) are
This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s 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:
December 8, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?