(PC) Hernandez v. Singleton et al, No. 1:2021cv01148 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Action for a Failure to Obey Court Orders and for a Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 06/07/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOVANNY HERNANDEZ, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. SINGLETON, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:21-cv-01148-JLT-BAK (HBK) (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FOR A FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. 23) 16 The assigned Magistrate Judge reviewed the allegations of the complaint and found 17 Plaintiff failed “to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” (Doc. 12 at 4.) The Magistrate 18 Judge directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 19 days of the date of service of the order. (Id.) The Court granted Plaintiff two extensions of time 20 to file an amended complaint. (See Docs. 18, 20.) After Plaintiff failed to file an amended 21 complaint, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be 22 23 dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey the Court’s order. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order. 24 The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the action be dismissed 25 26 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s orders. (Doc. 23.) In addition, the Magistrate Judge indicated: “Because the dismissal for failure to prosecute and obey 27 a court order is after the Court screened the complaint and directed Plaintiff to file an amended 28 1 complaint, this dismissal shall qualify as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” (Id. at 5, 2 citing Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) [emphasis in original].) The Court 3 granted Plaintiff 14 days within which to file objections and advised that “the failure to file 4 objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 5 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and 6 the time to do so has now passed. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review. Having 8 carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 9 supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. 11 The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 16, 2022 (Doc. 23) are adopted in full. 12 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 3. This dismissal SHALL qualify as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 14 4. The Clerk of the Court is to close this case. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2022 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.
