(PS) White v. City and County of West Sacramento, No. 2:2020cv02383 - Document 129 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/18/2023 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's order. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Woodson, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) White v. City and County of West Sacramento Doc. 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBBIE D. WHITE, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:20-cv-02383 TLN AC PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY AND COUNTY OF WEST SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). This action was 20 commenced on December 1, 2020. ECF No. 1. Though it has been pending for nearly three 21 years, the case has progressed little. Plaintiff has been intermittently represented by counsel; the 22 most recent counsel withdrew on May 23, 2023. ECF No. 105. On October 23, 2023, defendants 23 filed a motion to compel discovery responses, set to be heard on November 29, 2023. ECF No. 24 124. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Concerned that plaintiff 25 had abandoned this case, the court issued an order to show cause within 14 days why this action 26 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 128. Plaintiff was cautioned that 27 failure respond would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff was 28 specifically cautioned that, due to the length of time this case has been pending, the court would 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommend dismissal be with prejudice. Plaintiff again did not respond. Plaintiff has not 2 responded to the court’s orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case. 3 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 4 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 8 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 9 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 10 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 11 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 12 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 DATED: December 18, 2023 14 15 16 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.
