From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Marysville Police Dep't

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
2:22-cv-01284-DAD-DB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01284-DAD-DB (PC)

11-22-2022

PHILIP DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff, v. MARYSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(DOC. NO. 6)

Plaintiff Philip Davis, Jr., a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed a letter with this court to initiate this action. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 3, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 6.) In particular, plaintiff had failed to comply with the court's order dated August 4, 2022 (Doc. No. 4), in which the court ordered plaintiff to file a complaint and to either file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee to proceed with this action, within thirty (30) days from the date of that order. (Doc. No. 6.) In the pending findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge notes that “[t]hirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed a complaint, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, submitted the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court's August 4, 2022 order.” (Doc. No. 6 at 1.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 3, 2022 (Doc. No. 6) are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey a court order; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Davis v. Marysville Police Dep't

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
2:22-cv-01284-DAD-DB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)
Case details for

Davis v. Marysville Police Dep't

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff, v. MARYSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 22, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-01284-DAD-DB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)