Redick v. Sonora Police Department et al, No. 1:2021cv00287 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations ; ORDER DISMISSING Second Amended Complaint for Failure to Comply with a Court order and Failure to Prosecute,signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/15/2021. 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 STANLEY E. REDICK, III, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:21-cv-00287-NONE-SAB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING ACTION, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN THIS MATTER TO A DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE THE CASE v. SONORA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 11, 13, 14) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Stanley E. Redick, III, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action 19 on March 1, 2021, alleging various claims against the Sonora Police Department and its officers, 20 the Tuolumne County Jail and its office, and the Tuolumne District Attorney Office and its 21 attorneys. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On August 10, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order granting 24 plaintiff the opportunity to file a third amended complaint. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was granted 25 thirty (30) days to file the third amended complaint but failed to do so. On October 12, 2021, the 26 assigned magistrate judge therefore issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 27 plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, for failure to 28 comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and 1 1 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the 2 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. (Id.) 3 The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court agrees with the 6 findings and recommendations that plaintiff has failed to state any valid claims. Plaintiff was 7 afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint but has not filed a third amended complaint. 8 Therefore, dismissal is also warranted due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure 9 to prosecute this action. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. adopted in full; 12 13 The findings and recommendations, filed October 12, 2021 (Doc. No. 14), are 2. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed May 26, 2021 (Doc. No. 11), is 14 dismissed for failure to state a claim, for failure to comply with a court order, and 15 failure to prosecute; and 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this matter to a district judge and close the case. 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15, 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.