Zinzuwadia v. Mortgage Electronic Information Systems, Inc., et al

Filing 7

ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/2/2012 VACATING the Status Conference set for 7/11/2012; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. 41(b) and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ASHIT ZINZUWADIA,
Plaintiff,

11
12

No. 2:11-cv-3470-JAM-EFB PS

vs.

17

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.;
NDEX WEST, LLC; DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY;
ONEWEST BANK FSB; AMERICAN
MORTGAGE NETWORK, INC.;
NATIONWIDE POSTING AND
PUBLICATION, INC.; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive,

18

Defendants.

13
14
15
16

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

19
20

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, is before the undersigned

21

pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On

22

February 24, 2012, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis,

23

directed the clerk to provide plaintiff with the forms required to effect service on defendants, and

24

directed plaintiff to provide to the U.S. Marshal within fourteen days all information needed to

25

effect service of process and to file a statement with the court within fourteen days thereafter that

26

the documents were submitted. Dckt. No. 3. Also on February 24, 2012, the court issued an
1

1

order which, among other things, set a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for July 11, 2012,

2

directed plaintiff to serve a copy of the order concurrently with service of process, and directed

3

the parties to file status reports within fourteen days of the July 11, 2012 conference, or in this

4

instance, by June 27, 2012. Dckt. No. 6.

5

The docket reveals that plaintiff has not filed a statement that the service documents were

6

submitted to the Marshal, and the Marshal indicated on June 26, 2012 that he has not received

7

the service documents from plaintiff. Additionally, plaintiff did not file a status report, as

8

required by the February 24, 2012 order. Therefore, the undersigned will vacate the status

9

(pretrial scheduling) conference and will recommend that this case be dismissed for failure to

10

prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to

11

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

12

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the

13

Court.”); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (“Any individual representing himself or herself without an

14

attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local

15

Rules.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s

16

local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”).

17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Status Conference currently set for
July 11, 2012, is vacated.1

19

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

20

1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on

21

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with this court’s orders and Local

22

Rules; and

23

////

24

////

25
1

26

If the recommendation of dismissal herein is not adopted by the district judge, the
undersigned will reschedule the status conference and require the parties to submit status reports.
2

1

2. The Clerk be directed to close this case.

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

3

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one

4

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

5

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

6

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

7

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

8

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

DATED: July 2, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3