(PC) Robert Holmes v. Perez et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/1/2022 ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations. 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 ROBERT HOLMES, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:21-cv-01367-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PEREZ, et al., (Doc. No. 17) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Robert Holmes is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 28, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s excessive force in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Perez and Rocha and that all other claims and 23 defendants be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be 24 granted. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff was directed to file any objections within fourteen (14) days of 25 service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 9.) 26 Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on January 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 15.) The 27 pending findings and recommendations were re-served on plaintiff at his new address of record. 28 However, on February 11, 2022, the findings and recommendations that were served on plaintiff 1 1 at his new address were returned as “Undeliverable, Attempted-Not Known, Unable to Forward.” 2 Plaintiff has not responded to the findings and recommendations, filed a new notice of change of 3 address, or otherwise communicated with the court. 4 Therefore, on May 2, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 5 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 6 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 17.) Those findings and recommendations were again 7 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 8 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed with the court, and the 9 deadline to do so has now passed. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 12 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 13 analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. 16 17 adopted; 2. 18 19 20 21 22 The findings and recommendations issued on May 2, 2022 (Doc. No. 17) are This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 1, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?