(PC) Taylor v. Solano County Public Defenders Office et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/23/21 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in 10 order. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRANDON LA’SHAUN TAYLOR,
SOLANO COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER’S OFFICE, et al.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02114-JDP (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
On December 28, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s first complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was notified that it failed to state a claim and was granted
sixty days to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he wished to stand by his
original complaint. Id. He was also warned that failure to comply with that order could result in
dismissal of this action. Id. at 4.
The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor otherwise
responded to the December 28, 2020 order.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk
of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the December 28, 2020 order
was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court
apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents
at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders,
and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the December 28, 2020 order. See ECF No.
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to
the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being
served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be
served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 23, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?