Doyle v. Madera Superior Court et al, No. 1:2019cv01488 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case for Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court's Orders, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/13/2020. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS PIKE DOYLE, SR., Plaintiff, 12 MADERA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., (Doc. No. 6) Defendants. 15 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS v. 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-01488-NONE-SKO _____________________________________/ 17 18 On October 21, 2019, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against 19 defendants, but failed to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 (See Doc. No. 1.) On October 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge directed plaintiff to either 21 pay the filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days of the date of service 22 of the order and warned plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply . . . will result in a recommendation 23 that this action be dismissed.” (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the order and has not 24 paid the filing fee or requested to proceed in forma pauperis to date. 25 On December 2, 2019, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to show cause within 26 fourteen days why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the October 23, 27 2019 order, and warned plaintiff that if he did not respond to the order, a recommendation would 28 ///// 1 1 issue that the action be dismissed. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show 2 cause by the deadline and has not filed a response to date.1 3 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302, on March 5, 2020, the assigned 4 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 5 dismissed because Plaintiff failed to comply with the order to show cause, failed to comply with 6 other court orders, and failed to prosecute the case. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and 7 recommendations were mailed to plaintiff’s address on the docket and contained notice that any 8 objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) No objections have been filed. 9 Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo 10 review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and 11 recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 ORDER 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendation dated March 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 6), are 15 adopted in full; 16 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with 17 court orders; and 18 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 21 April 13, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Clerk mailed the December 2, 2019 order to plaintiff, but the order was returned as undeliverable on January 10, 2020. (See Docket.) On January 8, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, and the Clerk updated his address on the docket to “AZ-7224, North Kern State Prison (5004), P.O. Box 5004, Delano, CA 93216-9022.” (See Doc. No. 5.) On January 13, 2020, the Clerk re-served Plaintiff with the order to show cause at his new address, (see Docket), and the deadline to comply with the order has now passed. 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.