(PC) Stobbe v. Gill et al, No. 1:2020cv00656 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 7/13/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FORREST STOBBE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 DR. GILL, et al., 15 Case No. 1:20-cv-00656-ADA-HBK (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 12) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Forrest Stobbe (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 12, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”), 21 recommending the District Court to dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court 22 order and prosecute this action. (ECF No. 12.) Specifically, on February 3, 2023, the Magistrate 23 Judge screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that it stated cognizable Americans with 24 Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims against Dr. Gill but no other 25 Defendants. (See ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was given two options: (1) file a Notice under Rule 41 26 stating Plaintiff intends to stand on his FAC as screened herein and proceed only on his ADA and 27 RA claims against Defendant Gill in her official capacity but no other claim, thereby voluntarily 28 dismissing the other Defendants and other claims the Court deemed not cognizable; or (2) stand on 1 his FAC subject to the undersigned issuing a Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the 2 Defendants and claims the Court has deemed not cognizable. (Id. at 11-12.) Plaintiff failed to 3 exercise either of the options to respond to the screening order. On March 22, 2023, the Court 4 issued an Order to Show Cause, advising Plaintiff that the Court may involuntarily dismiss the 5 action if litigant fails to prosecute an action or comply with a court order, under Rule 41(b) of the 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 110. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff failed to respond to 7 the Order to Show Cause. 8 The April 12, 2023, F&R was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections to the 9 F&R were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 12 at 4-5.) On April 24, 2023, the Court 10 received a Notice that the F&R was returned “Undeliverable, Refused.” Plaintiff’s Change of 11 Address was due no later than July 3, 2023. Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff has not filed an updated 12 address as required by Local Rule 182(f), and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff has also failed 13 to exercise either of the options to respond to the screening order. 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 15 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 16 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed on April 12, 2023, (ECF No. 12), is adopted 19 20 in full; and 2. The Clerk of Court shall terminate any pending motions, close this case, and enter 21 judgment against Plaintiff. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 13, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
