(PC) Saucier v. Sacramento County Jail Medical Staff, No. 2:2021cv00950 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 11/5/2021 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, fa ilure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the 8/31/2021 order, and the Clerk be directed to close the case. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN SAUCIER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF, Defendant. 16 17 Case No. 2:21-cv-00950-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS On August 31, 2021, I screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 18 ECF No. 5. I notified him that the complaint failed to state a claim and granted him sixty days to 19 either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he wished to stand by his original 20 complaint, subject to a recommendation that it be dismissed. Id. I also warned plaintiff that 21 failure to comply with that order could result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 3. 22 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor otherwise 23 responded to the August 31, 2021 order.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of 24 Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 25 26 27 28 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the August 31, 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 1 1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, 3 and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the August 31, 2021 order. See ECF No. 5. 4 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 10 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 11 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 12 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 13 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 17 18 November 5, 2021 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.