(PC) Foster v. Sacramento Parole Dept. North Highlands et al, No. 2:2022cv01923 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/18/23 ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. CASE CLOSED (Licea Chavez, V)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN LEE FOSTER, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:22-cv-01923-DAD-CKD (PC) Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO PAROLE DEPT. NORTH HIGHLANDS, et al., Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. No. 10) 17 Plaintiff Martin Lee Foster is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 7, 2022, the court directed plaintiff to either file an application to proceed 21 in forma pauperis or pay the required $402.00 filing fee in order to proceed with this action. 22 (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis nor pay the 23 required filing fee. 24 Accordingly, on December 21, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 25 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 26 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 10.) The pending findings and 27 recommendations were served on plaintiff at his address of record and contained notice that any 28 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 1–2.) To date, 1 1 no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do 2 so has now passed.1 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 December 21, 2022 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full; 9 2. 10 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action; and 11 3. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. April 18, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The service copy of the findings and recommendations, which was mailed to plaintiff at his address of record, was returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable.” Thus, plaintiff was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than March 13, 2023. To date, plaintiff has not filed a notice of his change of address or otherwise communicated with the court. 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.