(PC) Lee Byrd v. Tuolumne County Sheriffs et al, No. 1:2021cv00559 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/18/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COSMO ALLEN LEE BYRD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY SHERIFFS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 1:21-cv-00559-NONE-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. No. 9) 17 Plaintiff Cosmo Allen Lee Byrd is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 19 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 19, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order granting plaintiff 21 22 leave to file a first amended complaint or notice to proceed only on the excessive force claim within 23 thirty days. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would 24 result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a 25 court order and for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or 26 otherwise communicate with the court. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 Therefore, on August 30, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order for plaintiff to show cause 2 why the action should not be dismissed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff did not respond 3 to the order to show cause. Consequently, on September 22, 2021, the magistrate judge issued 4 findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the action. (Doc. No. 9.) Those findings 5 and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to 6 be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the 7 deadline to do so has now passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de 9 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 analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. adopted in full; 13 14 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute; and 15 16 The findings and recommendations issued on September 22, 2021, (Doc. No. 9), are 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close this case. 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 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.
