From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ento v. Wash., D.C.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 6, 2022
1:21-cv-01537-DAD-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01537-DAD-HBK

06-06-2022

CHRISTIAN DAVID ENTO, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON, D.C., et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 4)

Plaintiff Christian David Ento is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) Finding that plaintiff's motion was incomplete and unsigned, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directing plaintiff to file a complete and signed in forma pauperis application within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Doc. No. 6.) That order was served on plaintiff at his address of record. On November 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge's order was returned to the court as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Insufficient Address, Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff did not file an updated address with the court as is required by Local Rule 182(f) and Local Rule 183(b). On January 18, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's case be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to update his address and his failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 4.) Those findings and recommendations were again served by mail on plaintiff at his address of record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were, not unexpectedly, once again returned to the court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed any objections with this court and the time in which to do so has since passed. Plaintiff was required by Local Rule 183 to file a notice of change of address with this court within sixty-three (63) days of the first undeliverable notice and has not done so.

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 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 18, 2022 (Doc. No. 4) are adopted;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to keep the court apprised of his current mailing address as required; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ento v. Wash., D.C.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 6, 2022
1:21-cv-01537-DAD-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Ento v. Wash., D.C.

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTIAN DAVID ENTO, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON, D.C., et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 6, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-01537-DAD-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022)