Vela v. County of Tulare Superior Court, No. 1:2020cv01153 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations ; ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the August 25, 2020 Order, and failure to prosecute; New Case No. 1:20-cv-1153 DAD-SAB, 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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISABEL VALDEZ VELA, Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-01153-NONE-SAB COUNTY OF TULARE SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 5) 16 17 18 On August 17, 2020, Isabel Valdez Vela, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 25, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found 22 plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff was grated leave 23 to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. No. 4.) On August 31, 2020, the August 24 25, 2020 screening order was returned by the United States Postal Service due to a clerical error 25 in entering plaintiff’s address. The order was re-served on the correct address on September 8, 26 2020. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the August 25, 2020 27 order. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, on October 20, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure 3 to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 5.) The findings and 4 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the 5 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. (Id.) 6 The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. 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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the 9 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis with regard 10 to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. The court declines to 11 address and expresses no opinion as to whether plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations, filed October 20, 2020, (Doc. No. 5) are 14 ADOPTED insofar as they dismiss this case for failure to prosecute and failure to 15 comply with a court order; 16 2. 2020 order, and failure to prosecute; 17 18 4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case; and 19 20 This action is DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the August 25, 5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 8, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.