(PC) Hernandez v. Kelly et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/09/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE L. HERNANDEZ, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:21-cv-00130-DAD-SKO (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION KELLY, et al., 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 13) 16 Plaintiff Jose L. Hernandez, Jr., a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 1, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint 20 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable 22 claims. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint attempting to 23 cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge within twenty-one (21) days after service 24 of that screening order. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file a first amended 25 complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action, would result in a recommendation that 26 this action be dismissed. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or a notice 27 voluntary dismissal, and the time in which to do so has passed. 28 ///// 1 1 On March 15, 2022, the magistrate judge issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause 2 within twenty-one (21) days from that date of that order why this action should not be dismissed 3 due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order of February 1, 2022. (Doc. No. 11.) 4 Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the order to show cause would result in a 5 recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order to 6 show cause or otherwise communicate with the court. 7 Accordingly, on April 18, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and 8 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey 9 court orders. (Doc. No. 13.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 10 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 11 service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, 12 and the time in which to do so has now 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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 15 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. 18 19 adopted in full; 2. 20 21 22 23 The findings and recommendations issued on April 18, 2022 (Doc No. 13) are This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?