(PC) Singh v. Folsom State Prison, No. 2:2023cv00058 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/04/2023 ADOPTING the 8 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING this action without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with a court order. CASE CLOSED. (Spichka, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:23-cv-00058-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. FOLSOM STATE PRISON, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. No. 8) 17 18 Plaintiff Raghvendra Singh is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to 23 comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 8.) Specifically, because the magistrate judge found that 24 plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim in his complaint, on April 7, 2023, the magistrate judge 25 issued an order dismissing this action with leave to amend and requiring plaintiff to file an 26 amended complaint within thirty (30) days of that order. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff was warned that 27 his failure to comply with that order may result in the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 3.) On May 28 18, 2023, plaintiff moved for a 60-day extension of time to file his amended complaint. (Doc. 1 1 No. 6.) The assigned magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s motion in part and ordered plaintiff to 2 file an amended complaint by June 19, 2023. (Doc. No. 7.) To date, plaintiff has not filed an 3 amended complaint and the deadline to do so has passed. 4 Accordingly, on July 5, 2023, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 5 recommendations recommending dismissal of this action due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 6 and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 8.) Those pending findings and recommendations 7 were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 8 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time in 9 which to do so has now passed. 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 finds the findings 12 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued on July 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted; 16 2. 17 This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with a court order; and 18 3. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. August 4, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.