(PC) Choate v. Robinson et al, No. 1:2020cv01252 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/30/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Choate v. Robinson et al Doc. 14 Case 1:20-cv-01252-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 08/02/21 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 GEORGE GRAHAM CHOATE, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-01252-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVID ROBINSON, et al., (Doc. No. 13) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff George Graham Choate is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 25, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered an order allowing plaintiff’s 21 First Amended Complaint to proceed on plaintiff’s claims against John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 for 22 failure to protect and retaliation. (Doc. No. 11.) The assigned magistrate judge directed plaintiff 23 to complete and return a subpoena form within thirty days so that he could subpoena documents 24 that may allow him to identify the Doe defendants. (Id. at 6-7.) The Clerk of Court served the 25 order by mail and it was returned undeliverable on March 10, 2021. Plaintiff did not respond to 26 the assigned magistrate judge’s order or file a notice of change of address. 27 28 On June 2, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01252-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 2 1 prosecute this case and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 13.) The assigned 2 magistrate judge gave plaintiff fourteen days from the date of service to file objections. (Id. at 3.) 3 Plaintiff was also advised that the findings and recommendations would be vacated if he updated 4 his current address within fourteen days. (Id. at 4.) The Clerk of Court served the findings and 5 recommendations by mail and, on June 10, 2021, the findings and recommendations were 6 returned undeliverable. Plaintiff has not updated his address, filed any objections, or otherwise 7 responded to the findings and recommendations. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 11 analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations entered on June 2, 2021 (Doc. No. 13), are 14 15 adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this 16 17 case and failure to comply with a court order; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge for the purpose of closing this 18 case and then to close this case. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 30, 2021 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.
