(PC) Miller v. Commissioner of the State of California Department of Corrections et al, No. 1:2021cv00176 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN L. MILLER, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:21-cv-00176-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. No. 19) Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Kevin L. Miller is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On April 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 23 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 24 No. 18.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint attempting to cure the 25 deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge within thirty (30) days after service of that 26 screening order. (Id. at 9–10.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file a first amended 27 complaint in compliance with the screening order would result in a recommendation that this 28 action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. (Id. at 10.) To 1 1 date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the 2 deadline in which to do so has now passed. 3 Accordingly, on June 9, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 4 recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, failure 5 to prosecute this action, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 6 19.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 7 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 11.) To 8 date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to 9 do so has now passed. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 12 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 16 adopted; 2. 17 18 19 20 The findings and recommendations issued on June 9, 2021 (Doc No. 19) are This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute this action; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 13, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.