(PC) Davis v. State of California et al, No. 1:2018cv00832 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 43 Findings and Recommendations and dismissing action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/11/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION D. ROBERTS. 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 43) 16 Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 22, 2020, defendant D. Roberts filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 20 21 40.) After plaintiff failed to oppose or file a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion 22 for summary judgment, on July 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show 23 cause why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action. 24 (Doc. No. 42.) The order to show cause required plaintiff to respond within twenty-one (21) 25 days, and warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order will result in this matter being 26 dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order 27 to show cause or otherwise communicate with the court. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, on September 1, 2020, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 2 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a 3 court order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 43.) The pending findings and recommendations 4 were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 5 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the findings and 6 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. 12 13 adopted in full; 2. 14 15 18 19 20 This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute; 3. 16 17 The findings and recommendations issued on September 1, 2020 (Doc No. 43) are Defendant D. Robert’s pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 40) is denied as having been rendered moot by the issuance of this order; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2