(PC) Winters v. Sherman et al, No. 1:2020cv00647 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Winters v. Sherman et al Doc. 12 Case 1:20-cv-00647-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE WINTERS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-00647-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STUART SHERMAN, et al., (Doc. No. 11) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Eugene Winters is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found that 21 plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation 22 of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Sherman and Milan but failed to state any other 23 cognizable claims for relief. (Doc. No. 9.) The court ordered plaintiff to file a first amended 24 complaint to attempt to cure the noted deficiencies or, alternatively, to notify the court in writing 25 of his willingness to proceed only on the claim identified as cognizable in the screening order. 26 (Id. at 9–10.) The court expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with the court’s 27 order within thirty (30) days would result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure 28 to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Nonetheless, plaintiff neither filed an 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00647-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 2 1 amended complaint or a notice of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claim identified in 2 the screening order, nor did he otherwise communicate with the court. 3 On September 28, 2020, the magistrate judge therefore issued findings and 4 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on 5 plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 11.) Those findings 6 and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto 7 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff did not file 8 objections, and the time in which to do so has passed. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 11 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. 14 15 are adopted in full; 2. 16 17 18 19 The findings and recommendations issued on September 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
