(PC) White v. Lao et al, No. 1:2018cv00911 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing This Action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/11/12. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARNEY RAY WHITE, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-00911-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY LAU, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION (Doc. No. 22) 16 17 Plaintiff Darney Ray White is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 When plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on July 5, 2018, plaintiff was incarcerated in 21 the Fresno County Jail. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address, and 22 plaintiff’s address of record therefore remains Fresno County Jail. 23 On March 18, 2019, the court adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 24 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s claim of excessive 25 use of force against defendants Deputy Lao and Deputy Gonzalez. (Doc. No. 21.) The court 26 served plaintiff by mail at his address of record on March 18, 2019, but that mail was returned to 27 the court as undeliverable, return to sender – unable to forward, on April 1, 2019. Plaintiff was 28 required by rule to file a notice of change of address by June 10, 2019, and he did not do so. 1 1 Accordingly, on September 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations, recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s 3 failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 22.) Those findings and recommendations were served 4 on plaintiff by mail at his address of record, but that mail was also returned to the court as 5 undeliverable, not in custody, on September 11, 2019. Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days 6 in which to file any objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) No 7 objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the 8 time for doing so has expired. Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address as required, 9 or otherwise communicate with the court regarding this action. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 12 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly: 14 1. 15 16 in full; 2. 17 18 19 20 The September 11, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 22) are adopted This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 11, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.