(PC) Brackett v. Bently, No. 2:2023cv02880 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/8/2024 ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations in Full and DISMISSING this action without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. CASE CLOSED. (Woodson, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMOND CHARLES BRACKETT, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:23-cv-02880-DAD-AC (PC) Plaintiff, v. MATHEW CHRISTOPHER BENTLY, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION (Doc. Nos. 2, 5, 10) 16 17 Plaintiff Demond Charles Brackett is a 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 December 19, 2023, the court ordered plaintiff to either file a completed application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis, including a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the 22 six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, in order to proceed with this 23 action. (Doc. No. 4.) The court provided plaintiff with thirty days to comply with that order. (Id. 24 at 1.) Despite receiving an extension of time in which to do so, plaintiff did not file a completed 25 application to proceed in forma pauperis, and the deadline in which to do so has passed. 26 Accordingly, on April 2, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 27 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 28 plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 1 1 10.) The findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff and contained notice that any 2 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 1.) To date, no 3 objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. 9 The findings and recommendations issued on April 2, 2024 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full; 10 2. 11 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute; and 12 3. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. May 7, 2024 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.