(PC) Dailey v. Solano County Sheriff et al, No. 2:2023cv00787 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/30/23 ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 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 SHARON N. DAILEY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:23-cv-00787-DAD-DB (PC) Plaintiff, v. SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendants. (Doc. No. 8) Plaintiff Sharon N. Dailey is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 26, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to 22 prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 8.) Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that the service copy 23 of the court’s orders dated July 25, 2023 (Doc. Nos. 5,6), which were mailed to plaintiff at her 24 address of record, had been returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Insufficient Address” 25 on August 16, 2023. (Doc. No. 8.) Thus, plaintiff was required to file a notice of her change of 26 address with the court no later than October 23, 2023. (Id.) Because plaintiff had not done so, 27 the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b)’s 28 requirement “that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change.” 1 1 (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) Further, because plaintiff had not otherwise communicated with the court, the 2 magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. (Id.) The pending 3 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail at her address of record and 4 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 5 service.1 (Id. at 1–2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 6 filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly: 11 1. 12 The findings and recommendations issued on October 26, 2023 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted in full; 13 2. 14 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action; and 15 3. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. November 30, 2023 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On August 2, 2023, the court received notice that plaintiff was released from custody. (Doc. No. 7.) In any event, plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b) and prosecute this action. 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.
