(PC) Ebel v. Valley State Prison et al, No. 1:2020cv00034 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action Due to Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2020. CASE CLOSED.(Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VLADIMIR R. EBEL, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:20-cv-00034-DAD-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, v. VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. No. 7) 17 18 Plaintiff Vladimir R. Ebel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 The complaint commencing this action was originally filed by fifteen plaintiffs on 22 December 26, 2019. See Gann v. Valley State Prison, 1:19-cv-01797-DAD-GSA, (Doc. No. 1). 23 Thereafter, on January 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order severing the fifteen 24 plaintiffs’ claims and opened this new case for plaintiff Ebel. (Doc. No. 1.) The January 7, 2020 25 order also directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint and an application to proceed in forma 26 pauperis in this civil action within thirty (30) days from the date of service. (Id. at 4–5.) The 27 thirty-day deadline passed, and plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, file an application to 28 proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the required filing fee. 1 1 Therefore, on March 20, 2020, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 2 recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s 3 failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 7.) The pending 4 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 5 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, no objections 6 have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. 12 13 adopted in full; 2. 14 15 16 17 The findings and recommendations issued on March 20, 2020 (Doc No. 7) are This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute this action; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 27, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
