(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)
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?