From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Solobay v. Presidio Tr.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
May 7, 2024
3:23-cv-06359-JD (N.D. Cal. May. 7, 2024)

Opinion

3:23-cv-06359-JD

05-07-2024

MICHELLE SOLOBAY, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDIO TRUST, Defendant.


ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES DONATO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Michelle Solobay filed this action against defendant Presidio Trust. Dkt. Nos. 1, 6. Solobay neither consented to nor declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and the record does not indicate Presidio Trust was served. See Dkt. Nos. 9, 10, 11.

The magistrate judge vacated the case management conference set for March 14, 2024, and directed Solobay to file a status report by March 21, 2024. Dkt. No. 11. The magistrate judge subsequently ordered Solobay to show cause by April 4, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed. Solobay did not respond to or otherwise comply with these orders. On April 5, 2024, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation advising dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute. No objections have been filed in response to this report, and the time to file objections has expired. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Based on the Court's independent review of the case, dismissal is appropriate for failure to prosecute. The case has been pending for nearly five months, and Solobay has made no appearance since filing her complaint. The report and recommendation is adopted in full, and the case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk's Office is asked to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Solobay v. Presidio Tr.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
May 7, 2024
3:23-cv-06359-JD (N.D. Cal. May. 7, 2024)
Case details for

Solobay v. Presidio Tr.

Case Details

Full title:MICHELLE SOLOBAY, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDIO TRUST, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: May 7, 2024

Citations

3:23-cv-06359-JD (N.D. Cal. May. 7, 2024)