(PS) Gabales v. State of California EDD et al, No. 2:2009cv00373 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/20/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 26 are ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED.(Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(PS) Gabales v. State of California EDD et al Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THEODORE GABALES, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-09-0373 MCE GGH PS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 ORDER Defendants. 15 __________________________________/ 16 On January 21, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 17 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 18 findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on 19 February 8, 2010, and defendants filed a reply on February 19, 2010. They were considered by 20 the district judge. 21 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 22 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 23 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 24 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 25 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 2 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 3 1983). 4 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 5 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 6 Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to prosecute his case, but has failed to do so. This 7 action was filed on February 9, 2009. Plaintiff first failed to file an opposition to defendants’ 8 motion to dismiss. Upon findings and recommendations recommending dismissal for the failure, 9 plaintiff filed a statement relating his problems effectuating service on some defendants. The 10 magistrate judge vacated the findings and recommendations as to certain defendants in order to 11 permit plaintiff to serve process on those defendants. Plaintiff failed to file a declaration 12 regarding service in accordance with that June 24, 2009 order, requiring the court to issue an 13 order to show cause. In response to other motions to dismiss, plaintiff requested an extension of 14 time to file an amended complaint. After hearing on those motions to dismiss, the magistrate 15 judge vacated the motions on November 3, 2009, and permitted plaintiff to file an amended 16 complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a 17 recommendation of dismissal. When plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, the magistrate 18 judge recommended dismissal on January 21, 2010. Based on the record before the undersigned, 19 plaintiff has not shown adequate excuse to prolong this case in light of the prejudice to 20 defendants. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 21, 2010, are 3 4 5 ADOPTED; and 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: April 20, 2010 6 7 8 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.