(PC) Gaspar v. Amador County Jail et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 11/22/2024 ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSING this action without prejudice and DENYING, as moot, 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS A. GASPAR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
AMADOR COUNTY JAIL, et al,
Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00240-DC-SCR (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THIS ACTION
(Doc. Nos. 2, 7)

16
17

Plaintiff Nicholas A. Gaspar is a former county jail inmate appearing pro se in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On October 29, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21

recommending this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

22

this action. (Doc. No. 7.) The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule

23

183(b)’s requirement that he notify the court of any change in his address of record. Specifically,

24

on August 13, 2024, the service copy of a court order that was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of

25

record was returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Attempted-Not Known.” Thus,

26

pursuant to Local Rule 183, Plaintiff was required to file a notice of his change of address with

27

the court no later than October 21, 2024, and he has not done so.

28

Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that
1

1

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 7 at 1–

2

2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in

3

which to do so has now passed.1

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

5

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

6

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

7

Accordingly:

8

1.

9

The findings and recommendations issued on October 29, 2024 (Doc. No. 7) are
adopted in full;

10

2.

11

This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute
this action;

12

3.

13

Plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as
having been rendered moot by this order; and

14

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

15
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated:

18

November 22, 2024

___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that on November 8, 2024, the service copy of the pending findings and
recommendations was also returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, No longer in
custody.”
2