(PC) Gallegos v. North Kern County State Prison et al, No. 1:2007cv00257 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DISMISSING Action With Prejudice For Failure to Prosecute; DENYING 29 Motion to Dismiss As MOOT in Light of Dismissal, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/23/2010. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gallegos v. North Kern County State Prison et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ERNEST GALLEGOS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00257-AWI-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT IN LIGHT OF DISMISSAL v. NORTH KERN COUNTY STATE PRISON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 (Docs. 29 and 36) / 15 Plaintiff Ernest Gallegos, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 16 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 16, 2007. The matter was 17 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 18 302. 19 On October 26, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 20 recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.1 The parties were 21 given ten days within which to file objections. To date, no objections have been filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 23 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 24 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 /// 26 27 28 1 Although the Findings and Recommendation was returned by the postal service as undeliverable, service was fully effective because Plaintiff has not notified the Court of any change in his address. Local Rule 182(f). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 26, 2010, are adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute; and 4 3. Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot in light of this dismissal. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: 0m8i78 November 23, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
