(PC) Dustin v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2014cv00757 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: AMENDED ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations, and Dismissing Action for Repeated Failure to Follow Court Orders signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/28/15. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE OWEN DUSTIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 1:14-cv-00757 AWI DLB PC AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR REPEATED FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDERS GIPSON, et al., (Document 57) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and 17 18 in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 19 December 13, 2014, and it was transferred to this Court on May 16, 2014. The matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this action 21 22 be dismissed for Plaintiff’s repeated failures to follow Court orders. The Findings and 23 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the Findings 24 and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. After this time period had passed 25 without objections, the Court issued an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations and 26 dismissed the case on July 20, 2015. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 On July 24, 2015, the Court docketed a motion for an extension of time to file objections. 2 The motion was signed by Plaintiff on June 18, 2015. The reason for the delay in receipt and/or 3 docketing is unknown. 4 5 The Court now issues this amended order adopting the June 5, 2015, Findings and Recommendations. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 7 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings 8 and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file objections is simply another delay on his part to 10 comply with Court orders. As the Court noted in the Findings and Recommendations, this action has 11 been pending for over one year and one half without an operative complaint, and Plaintiff continues 12 to refuse to comply with Court orders. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 5, 2015, are ADOPTED in full; 15 2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and 16 3. This action is DISMISSED. 17 18 19 This terminates this action in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill July 28, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.