Jackson v. Clear Recon Corp. et al

Filing 47

FINDINGS AND RCOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/12/2016 RECOMMENDING that this matter be dismissed with prejudice; Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 30 days after being served with these F & R's; any reply within 14 days after service of the objections.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEPHEN JACKSON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-00968 TLN AC

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CLEAR RECON CORP., BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., STEWART TITLE,
Defendants.

17
18

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter on April 30, 2015, ECF No. 1, and a First

20

Amended Complaint on August 24, 2015. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se.

21

Defendant Clear Recon Corp. filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on

22

December 16, 2015, ECF No. 13, and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed a Motion to

23

Dismiss on December 29, 2015. ECF 19. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motions on January

24

19, 2016, ECF No. 26, but failed to appear at the hearing held on the Motions on February 10,

25

2016. ECF No. 29. This court filed Findings and Recommendations that the Complaint should

26

be dismissed as to both defendants with leave to amend. ECF No. 30. The district court adopted

27

the Findings and Recommendations in an Order dated April 1, 2016, and granted plaintiff 30 days

28

to file an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 33.
1

1

On May 10, 2016, no Amended Complaint having been filed in response to the district

2

court’s order, the Bank of America, N.A. moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute

3

and for failing to comply with the district court’s order, ECF No. 34, and Clear Recon Corp. filed

4

a Joinder in that motion on May 11, 2016. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the

5

district court’s order on May 23, 2015, ECF No. 36, and an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss

6

on June 16, 2016, ECF No. 37. This court construed the plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate as a Motion

7

to File and to deem timely the Second Amended Complaint appended thereto, ECF No. 40, and

8

that Complaint was filed by the Clerk of the Court on the same date pursuant to the court’s order.

9

ECF No. 41.

10

On June 23, 2016, Bank of America filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 42, which was

11

joined by Clear Recon Corp. on June 29, 2016. ECF No. 43. The court set the matter for hearing

12

on August 3, 2016, which would have made the Plaintiff’s Opposition, or Statement of Non-

13

Opposition, due on July 20, 2015 under Eastern District of California No. 230(c). Plaintiff failed

14

to Oppose these Motions. On July 28, 2016, this court issued an Order to Show Cause directing

15

the plaintiff to demonstrate in writing why the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice

16

for failure to prosecute, and to file that response within 14 days of the issuance of the Order, or by

17

August 11, 2016; the hearing date was vacated. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff failed to respond to the

18

Order to Show Cause.

19
20

CONCLUSION
No Response to the Order having been received, this court finds that the plaintiff has

21

failed to prosecute the action and has repeatedly failed to obey court orders. It is accordingly

22

recommended that this matter be dismissed with prejudice.

23

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

24

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days

25

after the service of this Order any party may file written objections and serve a copy on all

26

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

27

Recommendations.” Any reply should be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service

28

of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
2

1

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

2

Cir. 1991).

3

DATED: August 12, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3