(PC) Hudson v. Vasquezcoy et al, No. 1:2021cv00861 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IKEEM JARMER HUDSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 1:21-cv-00861-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. No. 14) J. VASQUEZCOY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ikeem Jarmer Hudson is (or was) committed at the Metropolitan State 18 Hospital and proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint, concluding that 22 all claims and defendants should be dismissed, except for plaintiff’s excessive-force claim against 23 defendant J. Vasquezcoy. (Doc. No. 5.) After Plaintiff notified the court that he wished to 24 proceed only on the excessive-force claim against defendant J. Vasquezcoy, the assigned 25 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on July 27, 2021, consistent with the 26 screening order. (Doc. Nos. 7, 11). 27 28 On October 13, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this case without prejudice because plaintiff had failed to prosecute this case further 1 1 and comply with court orders, specifically by failing to complete and return documents necessary 2 for service and to keep the court updated as to his current mailing address. (Doc. No. 14.) 3 Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections. To date, plaintiff has not filed any 4 objections, and the time to do so has since expired. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 6 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 7 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. 10 11 adopted in full; 2. 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on October 13, 2021, (Doc. No. 14), are Now being moot, the Clerk of Court is directed to term as no longer pending the findings and recommendations issued on July 27, 2021, (Doc. No. 11); 3. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, because of plaintiff’s failure to serve, 14 prosecute, comply with the court’s orders, and update the court as to his mailing 15 address; and 16 4. 17 18 19 20 The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for purposes of closure and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 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.
