(PC) Creamer v. California State Prison Delano, No. 1:2023cv00139 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey Court Orders, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 10/25/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRUCE CREAMER, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON DELANO, No. 1:23-cv-00139-ADA-CDB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS (ECF No. 16) Defendant. Plaintiff Bruce Creamer is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 20, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that the Court dismiss this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure 22 to obey court orders. (ECF No. 16.) Specifically, the findings and recommendations note that 23 Plaintiff failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address, resulting in the return of the 24 Court’s first screening order on July 17, 2023. (Id. at 2–4.) Pro se parties are “under a continuing 25 duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address.” E.D. Cal. R. 182(f). 26 “Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the . . . pro se party shall be 27 fully effective.” Id. If mail is returned to the Court as undeliverable, and the pro se party fails to 28 notify the Court of an address change within sixty-three days, “the Court may dismiss the action 1 1 without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. 183(b). The findings and recommendations were 2 served on Plaintiff’s address of record and contained notice that Plaintiff had fourteen days within 3 which to file objections. (ECF No. 16 at 5.) On October 5, 2023, the findings and 4 recommendations were returned to the Court as “Undeliverable, RTS, Inactive.” (See docket.) 5 Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise communicated with the Court, and the deadline to 6 do so has passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 8 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 9 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. 12 13 are adopted in full; 2. 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on September 20, 2023, (ECF No. 16), This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 25, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.