(PC) Hutchens v. Shasta County Jail et al, No. 2:2019cv02035 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/7/2020 ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. CASE CLOSED. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Hutchens v. Shasta County Jail et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON JOESPH HUTCHENS, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-02035-TLN-AC v. ORDER SHASTA COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Aaron Joseph Hutchens, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a county prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this 17 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 20, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 20 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has 23 not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff’s copy of the Findings and 24 25 Recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility 26 to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 27 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 2 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 5 6 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 20, 2020 (ECF No. 8), are adopted 9 in full; and 10 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 183(b). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: April 7, 2020 13 14 15 16 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 17 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.