(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail Medical, No. 1:2019cv01202 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 38 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 37 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/7/2020;(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETE REYNA, 12 No. 1:19-cv-01202-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 KINGS COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. No. 38) 16 Plaintiff Pete Reyna is a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first 19 amended complaint against defendant Siddiqi1 for alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights under the 20 Fourteenth Amendment due to the delay in providing plaintiff medical care. This matter was 21 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 22 302. On November 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 24 recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss due to plaintiff’s failure to 25 prosecute this action be denied. (Doc. No. 38.) Those findings and recommendations were 26 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 27 28 1 The named defendant was erroneously sued as defendant “Sadiki.” 1 1 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3–4.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to 2 do so has expired. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 6 analysis. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 2, 2020, (Doc. No. 38), are adopted in full; 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action (Doc. No. 37), is denied; and 3. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 7, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 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.