Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Earls

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
May 9, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.6%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-JDP (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v. DENYING DEFENDANTS’ PENDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT AND DIRECTING

14 D. EARLS Jr., et al.¸ THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A

DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER

15 Defendants.

ECF Nos. 29 & 38

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

17

THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR

18 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY

WITH COURT ORDERS

19

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

20 DAYS

21

22 On October 10, 2023, defendants filed a motion to compel. ECF No. 29. On February 8,

23 2024, after plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion, I

24 ordered him to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one days. ECF

25 No. 37. Plaintiff did not comply with that order. Accordingly, on March 19, 2024, I ordered him

26 to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

27 prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 39. I warned him that failure to

28 comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. at 2.

1 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-

2 || opposition or otherwise responded.

3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

4 1. Defendants’ motion to compel, ECF No. 29, is denied as moot.

5 2. Defendants’ motion to vacate the dispositive motion deadline, ECF No. 38, is denied

6 as moot.

7 3. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this matter.

8 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

9 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to

10 comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the March 19, 2024, order.

11 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days of

14 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

15 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to

16 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response shall be served and filed

17 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

18 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

19 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

20 | 1991).

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 ( q oy —

Dated: _ May 9, 2024 q———

24 JEREMY D,. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.