(PC) Clark v. Eaton, et al., No. 1:2020cv00874 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED due to plaintiffs failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/8/2020. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST E. CLARK, IV, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:20-cv-00874-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. PATRICK EATON, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. No. 15) 17 18 Plaintiff Ernest E. Clark is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint in this 22 action and found that he had stated cognizable Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement 23 claims against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2, but had failed to state any other cognizable 24 claims against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2, or any other named defendants. (Doc. No. 11 25 at 12–13.) Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days from the date of service of that screening order to 26 either file a first amended complaint or notify the court of his decision to proceed only on the 27 claims found by the screening order to be cognizable against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2. 28 (Id. at 13–14.) The court served the screening order on plaintiff by mail on August 13, 2020. 1 1 Despite requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to do so (Doc. Nos. 12, 13), 2 plaintiff did not file a first amended complaint, nor did he notify the court of his decision to 3 proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable against defendants Eaton, Gates, and Doe 2. 4 Accordingly, on November 5, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 5 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a 6 court order and failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. No. 15.) Those findings and 7 recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail on November 5, 2020 and contained notice 8 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the findings 9 and recommendations. (Id. at 3–4.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and 10 11 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 12 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that 13 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. 16 17 adopted in full; 2. 18 19 20 21 The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 15) are This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.