(PC) Khademi v. Roseville Police Department et al, No. 2:2021cv00966 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/17/2023 ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey court orders. CASE CLOSED. (Perdue, C.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVOOD KHADEMI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-00966-DAD-DMC (PC) v. ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION (Doc. No. 31) 16 Plaintiff Davood Khademi is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 25, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 20 21 recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to 22 prosecute this action and failure to obey court orders. (Doc. No. 31.) The pending findings and 23 recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail at his address of record and contained notice 24 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service.1 (Id. at 2.) To 25 1 26 27 28 The service copy of the findings and recommendations was returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable. Not at facility.” Thus, plaintiff was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than April 13, 2023. Indeed, the service copies of several of the court’s orders have been returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable,” and plaintiff was first required to update his address by October 24, 2022 and failed to do so. To date, plaintiff has still not filed a notice of his change of address or otherwise communicated with the court. 1 1 date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to 2 do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. 8 The findings and recommendations issued on January 25, 2023 (Doc. No. 31) are adopted in full; 9 2. 10 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey court orders; and 11 3. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. May 17, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.