(PC) Gradford v. Velasco et al, No. 1:2020cv00543 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 70 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Construing 65 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss as a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Case; ORDER Denying All Pending Motions as Moot; and ORDER Dismissing Case Without Prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/30/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Gradford v. Velasco et al Doc. 71 Case 1:20-cv-00543-DAD-EPG Document 71 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. 1:20-cv-00543-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. No. 70) F. VELASCO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On May 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a document entitled “plaintiff’s request to dismiss this 22 case.” (Doc. No. 65.) On June 7, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered an order 23 requiring plaintiff to submit a notice within 14 days of service of the order, stating whether the 24 May 25, 2021 filing was intended to voluntarily dismiss this case and warning plaintiff that, if 25 he failed to respond, it would be presumed that he did wish to dismiss this case as indicated in 26 his filing. (Doc. No. 69.) After plaintiff failed to respond, the magistrate judge entered 27 findings and recommendations on July 1, 2021, recommending that this case be dismissed 28 without prejudice as voluntarily dismissed and providing the parties 14 days to file any 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00543-DAD-EPG Document 71 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 2 1 objections. (Doc. No. 70.) To date, neither party has filed any objections, and the time to do so 2 has since expired. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 5 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 1, 9 2021 (Doc. No. 70), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 65) is construed as a motion to 10 11 voluntarily dismiss this case under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii); 12 3. This case is dismissed without prejudice and all pending motions are denied as 13 moot; and 14 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for 15 purposes of closure and to close this case 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 30, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.