(PC) Johnson v. Mata et al, No. 2:2022cv00613 - Document 70 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/20/23 ADOPTING 69 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING action without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JOHNSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. MATA, et al., 15 No. 2:22-cv-00613-DAD-KJN (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendants. (Doc. No. 69) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Michael Johnson is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 20 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On October 10, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to 24 prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 69.) Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that the service 25 copy of the court’s order dated September 1, 2023 (Doc. No. 68), which was mailed to plaintiff at 26 his address of record, had been returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable.” Thus, plaintiff 27 was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than November 13, 28 2023. Because plaintiff had not done so, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has failed 1 1 to comply with Local Rule 183(b)’s requirement that a party appearing pro se inform the court of 2 any address change. (Doc. No. 69.) Further, because plaintiff had not otherwise communicated 3 with the court, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. 4 The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail at his address of 5 record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days 6 after service. (Id. at 2.)1 To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 7 filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 11 Accordingly: 12 1. 13 The findings and recommendations issued on October 10, 2023 (Doc. No. 69) are adopted in full; 14 2. 15 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action; and 16 3. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. December 20, 2023 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On November 3, 2023, the service copy of the findings and recommendations were returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Unable to Forward.” 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.
