McZeal v. Zapata et al
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/27/17 ordering this action is dismissed without prejudice. CASE CLOSED (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RONALD J. MCZEAL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-01795-AC P
v.
ORDER
ANDRES ZAPATA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. On May 3, 2017, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and determined that
19
service was appropriate for defendant Andres Zapata. ECF No. 6. It directed plaintiff to submit
20
the necessary service documents within thirty days of that order. Id. That deadline has now
21
passed and plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order. Plaintiff was warned that failure to
22
comply with the court’s order could result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 6. The district court
23
has authority to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
24
41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). Additionally, mail sent to plaintiff was
25
recently returned as undeliverable with an indication that he had been paroled. The court notes
26
that it has the power to dismiss this action because plaintiff consented to magistrate judge
27
jurisdiction. ECF No. 4; see Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1119-21 (9th Cir. 2012).
28
////
1
1
2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
DATED: June 27, 2017
3
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
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?