(PC) Lawrie v. Williams et al, No. 1:2019cv00640 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING this action without prejudice, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/14/2020. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW A. LAWRIE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00640-DAD-GSA (PC) v. SERGEANT D. WILLIAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 14) 16 17 Plaintiff Matthew A. Lawrie is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 15, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 22 recommending that plaintiff be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and be required to pay 23 the required $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action.1 (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff timely 24 filed objections on May 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 3.) On September 23, 2019, the undersigned 25 adopted the findings and recommendations in full and ordered plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing 26 27 28 1 On May 15, 2019, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff was ineligible for in forma pauperis status because he had accrued three prior strike dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and did not qualify for the “imminent danger” exception outlined in § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 2 at 2–4.) 1 1 fee in full within thirty (30) days. (Doc. No. 6.) In that order, plaintiff was warned that if he 2 failed to pay the filing fee within the specified time, the action would be dismissed. (Id.) On October 7, 2019, plaintiff appealed the court’s order denying him leave to proceed in 3 4 forma pauperis to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. (Doc. No. 7.) On January 28, 2020, the 5 Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s appeal for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 12.). 6 On February 18, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 7 recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the 8 required filing fee, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 14.) Those 9 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 10 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff timely filed 11 objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 15.) 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 13 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 14 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 15 by proper analysis. In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates that he cannot afford to pay the court’s filing 16 17 fees and that his case is relevant and has merit. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff also restates the same 18 objections that he had asserted to the magistrate judge findings and recommendations that he be 19 denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, i.e., that his life is in danger due to this litigation and 20 that he cannot safely prosecute this action “because defendant cooperates with guards in prison.” 21 (Id.) However, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to 22 reject the pending findings and recommendations. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 14) are 3 4 adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the 5 6 7 8 required filing fee, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.