(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)

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