(PC) Bridgeman v. Department of California Correction et al., No. 2:2015cv02579 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/15/2016 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Bridgeman v. Department of California Correction et al. Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD BRIDGEMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:15-cv-2579 AC P ORDER and DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA CORRECTION, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff commenced this prisoner civil rights action by filing a complaint on December 18 14, 2015. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c).1 By order filed December 29, 2015, plaintiff 20 was directed to submit a fully completed in forma pauperis application or pay the appropriate 21 filing fee within thirty days. See ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with 22 the court’s order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 23 See id. at 2. The thirty-day period has long expired and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 24 25 Moreover, review of the Inmate Locator Website operated by the California Department of 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff submitted an “Order Re. Consent or Request for Reassignment” indicating both that he consented, and did not consent, to the authority of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes. See ECF No. 4; see also ECF No. 5 (directing plaintiff to choose only one of the options). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)2 indicates that plaintiff continues to be incarcerated at the 2 California Medical Facility, where plaintiff was incarcerated when he commenced this action. 3 The court infers from this fact that plaintiff received the court’s prior order and chose to disregard 4 it. 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 7 8 Additionally, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the 12 court; such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 14 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 15 Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: March 15, 2016 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 26 27 28 See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (Inmate Locator website operated by CDCR). This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable dispute.”). 2

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.