(PC) Davis v. Obrien et al, No. 1:2019cv01032 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations and Granting 27 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/12/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH DAVIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-1032-NONE-HBK ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. No. 29) S. SPETH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Kenneth Davis initiated this action as a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) 19 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 20 and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 12, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations granting 22 defendant’s motion to dismiss due to plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current 23 address, ultimately recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 29 at 1–5.) The 24 findings and recommendations served on plaintiff contained notice that objections were due 25 within fourteen days. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff did not file any objections. (See docket). Instead, the 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 May 12, 2021 order was returned to the court as undeliverable due to plaintiff not keeping the 2 court apprised of his address. (Id.) 1 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 5 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 7 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on May 12, 2021, (Doc. No. 29), are adopted 8 in full; 9 10 2. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this matter for the purposes of closure, terminate any pending motions, close this case, and enter judgment against plaintiff. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 13 July 12, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 Prior to the issuance of findings and recommendations, earlier court orders (Doc. Nos. 23, 25, 26) were served on plaintiff but were returned as undeliverable in August and September of 2020. (See docket.) According to Local Rule 183(b), plaintiff had sixty-three (63) days to update his address. He failed to do so. 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.