(PC) McCullom v. Withrow et al

Filing 9

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 9/14/2022 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a US District Judge to this case, and RECOMMENDINGS that this action be dismissed for failure t o prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim, for the reasons set forth in 7 order; and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned for all further proceedings. Referred to District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections due within 14 days of the service of the findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:21-cv-0378-DAD-JDP (PC). (Huang, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN LEE McCULLOM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. PATRICK WITHROW, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Case No. 2:21-cv-00378-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 DAYS On July 12, 2022, I screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified him that it failed to state a 18 claim, and gave him thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 7. I also warned him that 19 failure to comply with the July 12 order could result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 3. Plaintiff 20 did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly, on August 22, 2022, I ordered him to show 21 cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed. ECF No. 8. I notified 22 him that if he wished to continue with this action he must file, within twenty-one days, an 23 amended complaint. I also warned him that failure to comply with the order would result in a 24 recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. 25 26 27 28 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the August 22, 2022 order.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that that the Clerk Although it appears from the docket that plaintiff’s copy of the July 12, 2022 order and the August 22, 2022 order were returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is plaintiff’s 1 1 1 of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 2 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, 4 and failure to state a claim, for the reasons set forth in the July 12, 2022 order. 5 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 6 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 7 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 8 Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 9 recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 10 Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: 16 17 September 14, 2022 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 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?