(PC) Freitag v. Mims, et al., No. 1:2018cv01180 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Action for Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/15/2019. CASE CLOSED (Orozco, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN DAVID FREITAG, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. MARGARET MIMS, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:18-cv-01180-DAD-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. No. 9) 16 17 Plaintiff Ryan David Freitag is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended 23 complaint or to notify the court that he wished to stand on the complaint within thirty (30) days of 24 from the date of service. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file an amended 25 complaint or inform the court of his desire to stand on the complaint in compliance with the 26 screening order would result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim, failure to 27 prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (Id.) More than thirty days have passed, but 28 ///// 1 1 to date, plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint, informed the court of his desire to stand 2 on the complaint, or otherwise communicated with the court. 3 Therefore, on August 30, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and 4 recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s 5 failure to failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were 6 served on plaintiff1 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 7 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, no objections to the findings and 8 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court adopts the 11 findings and recommendations. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. 14 The findings and recommendations issued on August 30, 2019 (Doc No. 9) are adopted; 15 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: November 15, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 27 The court notes that both the January 24, 2019 screening order and the August 30, 2019 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff at his address of record but returned to the court as undeliverable. It thus appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rules 182(b) and 183(b), requiring that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change and that dismissal is therefore appropriate due to plaintiff’s failure in this regard as well. Local Rule 183(b). 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.