(PC) Robinson v. Davey et al, No. 1:2017cv01524 - Document 86 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 85 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to keep the Court apprised of his current mailing address as required, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/1/2021. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY L. ROBINSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 17-cv-01524-DAD-GSA (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. PETERSON, et al., (Doc. No. 85) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Anthony L. Robinson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 20 21 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 22 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 85.) The findings and recommendations recommended 23 dismissal in part because the court’s most recently issued order was returned by the United States 24 Postal Service to the court marked as undeliverable on August 18, 2021 due to plaintiff’s apparent 25 change of address. The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail 26 at his address of record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 27 fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) However, on November 8, 2021, the United 28 ///// 1 1 States Postal Service returned those findings and recommendations to the court as likewise 2 undeliverable. 3 4 Plaintiff was required by Local Rule 183 to file a notice of change of address with this court within sixty-three (63) days of the first undeliverable notice and has not done so. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 6 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 7 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. 10 11 adopted in full; 2. 12 13 14 15 16 The findings and recommendations issued on October 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 85) are This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to keep the court apprised of his current mailing address as required; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
