Ento v. Washington, DC et al, No. 1:2021cv01537 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations,signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/06/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN DAVID ENTO, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:21-cv-01537-DAD-HBK Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WASHINGTON, D.C., et al., (Doc. No. 4) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Christian David Ento is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) 21 Finding that plaintiff’s motion was incomplete and unsigned, the assigned magistrate judge issued 22 an order denying plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directing plaintiff to file a 23 complete and signed in forma pauperis application within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Doc. 24 No. 6.) That order was served on plaintiff at his address of record. On November 4, 2021, the 25 assigned magistrate judge’s order was returned to the court as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, 26 Insufficient Address, Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff did not file an updated address with the court 27 as is required by Local Rule 182(f) and Local Rule 183(b). On January 18, 2022, the assigned 28 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s case be 1 1 dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to update his address and his failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 2 4.) Those findings and recommendations were again served by mail on plaintiff at his address of 3 record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days 4 of service. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were, not unexpectedly, once again returned 5 to the court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed any objections with this court and the time in 6 which to do so has since passed. Plaintiff was required by Local Rule 183 to file a notice of 7 change of address with this court within sixty-three (63) days of the first undeliverable notice and 8 has not done so. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 11 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on January 18, 2022 (Doc. No. 4) are adopted; 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 16 and failure to keep the court apprised of his current mailing address as required; 17 and 18 19 20 21 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 6, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
