(PC) Hans v. Baniga et al, No. 1:2019cv00622 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations and dismissing action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2020. 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 RICHARD R. HANS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00622-DAD-JLT (PC) v. U. BANIGA, Chief Physician and Surgeon at California Correctional Institution, et al., 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. No. 8) Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Richard R. Hans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 19 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 22 recommending that the action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and for failure 23 to inform the court of any change in his address of record.1 (Doc. No. 8.) The findings and 24 ///// 25 26 27 28 1 The magistrate judge issued a screening order on November 1, 2019, requiring plaintiff to file a response within thirty (30) days of service of that order. (Doc. No. 7.) However, that order was returned to the court by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable with an indication that plaintiff had been released on parole. The court has not received any filings from plaintiff since his initiation of this action on May 8, 2019. 1 1 recommendations were served on plaintiff2 and contained notice that any objections thereto were 2 to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. No objections have been filed, and the time in 3 which to do so has now passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. 9 adopted in full; 10 2. 11 This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and to keep the court apprised of his address; and 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on February 4, 2020 (Doc. No. 8) are 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: April 27, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Though the findings and recommendations were returned as undeliverable, service of the order is nonetheless deemed effective under Local Rule 182(f) due to plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of any changes of address. 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.