(PC) Pratt v. United State of America, No. 1:2019cv01465 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 27 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action Due to Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/13/2021. 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 BYRON PRATT, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 1:19-cv-01465-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendant. (Doc. No. 27) Plaintiff Byron Pratt is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil action brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 22 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 27.) Specifically, because plaintiff has failed to timely 23 file an opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, to defendant’s pending motion for summary 24 judgment as required by the Local Rules, on August 13, 2021, the magistrate judge issue an order 25 requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure 26 to prosecute. (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with that order may 27 result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Id. 28 at 1.) On August 26, 2021, the service copy of the order to show cause was returned to the court 1 1 as “Undeliverable, RTS, Not At Institution.” Plaintiff was required by local rule to file a notice 2 of change of address with this court by November 4, 2021, and he did not do so. To date, 3 plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition as directed, or otherwise 4 communicated with the court. 5 Accordingly, on November 16, 2021, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 6 recommendations recommending dismissal of this action due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 7 (Doc. No. 27.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 8 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 9 service. (Id. at 2.) On December 6, 2021, those findings and recommendations mailed to plaintiff 10 was also returned to the court as “Undeliverable: Not at this Institution.” To date, no objections 11 have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 14 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. 17 18 are adopted in full; 2. 19 20 23 24 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action; 3. 21 22 The findings and recommendations issued on November 16, 2021 (Doc. No. 27) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 24) is terminated as having been rendered moot by this order; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.