(PC) Cassells v. Dhillon et al, No. 2:2019cv00644 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 04/06/21 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with the court's local rules. The clerk of court be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 BALRAJ SINGH DHILLON, 15 Defendant. Case No. 2:19-cv-00644-KJM-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 19 On November 6, 2020, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended 20 complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 23. In violation of 21 Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff failed to timely file a response to defendant’s motion. Accordingly, 22 on January 22, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this action 23 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the court’s local 24 rules. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff was notified that if he wished to continue this lawsuit, he also 25 needed to file, within twenty-one days, a response to defendant’s motion. He was warned that 26 failure to comply with the court’s January 22, 2021 order would result in a recommendation that 27 this action be dismissed. 28 1 1 2 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendant’s motion nor otherwise responded to the January 22, 2021 order.1 3 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, 5 and failure to comply with the court’s local rules. 6 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 12 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 13 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 15 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: April 6, 2021 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Although the docket reflects that plaintiff’s copy of the January 22, 2021 order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.