(PC) Brown v. Earls et al

Filing 40

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 05/09/2024 DENYING the 29 Motion to Compel as moot, DENYING the 38 Motion to Vacate the Dispositive Motion Deadline as moot and DIRECTING the Clerk to random ly assign a district judge to this matter. District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned for all further proceedings. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failu re to comply with court orders and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:22-cv-0359 DAD JDP (PC). (Spichka, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, v. D. EARLS Jr., et al.¸ Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-JDP (PC) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER Defendants. ECF Nos. 29 & 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 21 22 On October 10, 2023, defendants filed a motion to compel. ECF No. 29. On February 8, 23 2024, after plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion, I 24 ordered him to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one days. ECF 25 No. 37. Plaintiff did not comply with that order. Accordingly, on March 19, 2024, I ordered him 26 to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 27 prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 39. I warned him that failure to 28 comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. at 2. 1 1 2 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition or otherwise responded. 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 4 1. Defendants’ motion to compel, ECF No. 29, is denied as moot. 5 2. Defendants’ motion to vacate the dispositive motion deadline, ECF No. 38, is denied 6 as moot. 7 3. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this matter. 8 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 10 comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the March 19, 2024, order. 11 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 14 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 15 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to 16 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response shall be served and filed 17 within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 18 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 19 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 20 1991). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: May 9, 2024 24 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?