Opinion
2:20-cv-00227-TLN-JDP (PC)
06-28-2021
RYAN INDIANA CURRY, Plaintiff, v. SESSIONS, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 9, 2021, I ordered plaintiff to file a response to defendants' motion for terminating sanctions by no later than March 30, 2021. Plaintiff filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition. Accordingly, on April 26, 2021, I ordered him to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, and I notified plaintiff that if he wished to continue this lawsuit, he also needed to file, within twenty-one days, a response to defendants' motion. ECF No. 46. I warned him that failure to comply with the April 26 order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition or otherwise responded to the April 26 order.
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.