Hallal et al v. Qtik et al, No. 1:2021cv00525 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/5/2021.CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
Hallal et al v. Qtik et al Doc. 5 Case 1:21-cv-00525-NONE-SKO Document 5 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEANLOUISE HALLAL and BRENT ALAN BRIGNER, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 v. No. 1:21-cv-00525-NONE-SKO ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 4) EABAL QTIK, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On March 26, 2021, plaintiffs JeanLouise Hallal and Brent Alan Brigner, proceeding pro 18 se, filed the complaint in this case against defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 31, 2021, the 19 court directed plaintiffs to either pay the $402 filing fee or submit applications to proceed in forma 20 pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915, within 30 days of the date of 21 service of the order, as plaintiffs had done neither at the time of the filing of the complaint. (Doc. 22 No. 2.) When served at plaintiffs’ address of record, the March 31, 2021 order was returned as 23 undeliverable on April 21, 2021. (See Docket.) Local Rule 183(b) provides that: 24 25 26 27 A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(b). Although more than 63 days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00525-NONE-SKO Document 5 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 2 1 returned the court’s March 31, 2021 order as undeliverable, plaintiffs have failed to notify the 2 court of their current address(es). 3 On July 1, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommended that the 4 case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiffs 5 were granted twenty-one (21) days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendation. 6 (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the time do so has expired. 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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the 9 findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendation issued July 1, 2021 (Doc. No. 4) are adopted in full; 12 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this 13 14 action; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 5, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 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.