Lawrence v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al, No. 1:2021cv01224 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action due to Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and Obey a Court Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/03/2022. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT LAWRENCE, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:21-cv-01224-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. Nos. 5, 25) 17 18 Plaintiff Robert Lawrence, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action in the Tulare 19 County Superior Court on February 18, 2021, and defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. removed 20 this action on August 12, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 19, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 24 this action and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 25.) In particular, on June 13, 2022, the 25 court had issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 26 dismissed due to his failure to prosecute, explaining that “[t]his case cannot proceed without 27 Plaintiff’s participation” and warning that “[i]f Plaintiff does not indicate that he plans to go 28 forward with and participate in this case, the Court will issue a recommendation that the case be 1 1 dismissed without prejudice.” (Doc. No. 24 at 1–2.) Plaintiff did not respond to that order to 2 show cause. Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 3 recommendations, which were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections 4 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 25 at 3.) On July 29, 5 2022, the service copy of those findings and recommendations, which had been served by mail on 6 plaintiff at his address of record, was returned to the court as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, 7 Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” To date, no objections to the findings and 8 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. Plaintiff has 9 also not otherwise communicated with the court. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 12 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly: 14 1. 15 16 adopted in full; 2. 17 18 21 22 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey a court order; 3. 19 20 The findings and recommendations issued on July 19, 2022 (Doc. No. 25) are The pending motion to dismiss filed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Doc. No. 5) is terminated as having been rendered moot by this order; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
