McCoy v. Philadelphia Insurance Company, No. 1:2020cv01329 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations ;Ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on plaintiffs failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/13/2021. 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 MAURICE MCCOY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 1:20-cv-01329-NONE-SKO ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 35) Defendant. On March 24, 2020, plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against defendant in the 18 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. (Doc. No. 1-3.) The action was removed 19 to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on May 15, 2020 (see Doc. No. 1) 20 and subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 21 California, Fresno Division, on September 18, 2020 (see Doc. No. 12). 22 On May 4, 2021, defendant filed a status report indicating that plaintiff refused to 23 cooperate in preparing a joint scheduling report, as required by the court’s Order Setting 24 Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Doc. No. 13). (See Doc. No. 30 at 2.) After plaintiff failed 25 to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference on May 6, 2021 (see Doc. No. 32), the assigned 26 magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) why the case should not be dismissed 27 for his failure to comply with the court’s Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Doc. 28 No. 13) and for his failure to prosecute the case. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff was warned that the 1 1 failure to comply with the court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal to the 2 presiding district judge. (Id.) 3 On June 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommended that the 4 case be dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s orders and for failure to 5 prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 35.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14) days in which to file 6 objections to the findings and recommendation. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the time 7 to do so has passed. 8 9 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. 13 14 in full; 2. 15 16 The findings and recommendation issued June 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 35) are adopted This action is dismissed with prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 13, 2021 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.