(PC) McCullom v. Withrow et al, No. 2:2021cv00378 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/22 ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action, failure to obey court orders, and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. CASE CLOSED (Licea Chavez, V)

Download PDF
(PC) McCullom v. Withrow et al Doc. 10 Case 2:21-cv-00378-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN LEE MCCULLOM, 12 No. 2:21-cv-00378-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 PATRICK WITHROW, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS (Doc. No. 9) 17 Plaintiff Kevin Lee McCullom is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 23 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey court orders, and failure to state a cognizable claim. 24 (Doc. No. 9.) In particular, on July 12, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and 25 determined that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, and the court directed 26 plaintiff to file an amended complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 7 at 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00378-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 2 1 3.)1 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 2 Accordingly, on August 22, 2022, the court issued an order to plaintiff to show cause why this 3 case should not be dismissed due to his failure to prosecute and failure to state a cognizable claim 4 for relief. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff did not respond to that order to show cause, and the service 5 copy of that order was also returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Not in Custody.” The 6 pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff at his address of record and 7 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 8 service. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have 9 been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 2 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 12 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly: 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2022 (Doc. No. 9) are adopted in full; 16 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 17 this action, failure to obey court orders, and failure to state a cognizable claim for 18 relief; and 19 3. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. November 23, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The service copy of the court’s screening order was mailed to plaintiff at his address of record and was also returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Not in Custody.” Thus, plaintiff was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than October 11, 2022. To date, plaintiff has not filed a notice of his change of address or otherwise communicated with the court. 1 2 The service copy of the findings and recommendations, which was mailed to plaintiff at his address of record, was also returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable.” 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.