Opinion
No. 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB (PC)
05-06-2020
NICHOLAS ESTRADA, Plaintiff, v. NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al., Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION
(Doc. No. 30)
Plaintiff Nicholas Estrada is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 February 28, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge within thirty days after service of that screening order. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file a second amended complaint in compliance with the screening order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id.)
After receiving three extensions of time, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on July 22, 2019 (Doc. No. 16), which the magistrate judge screened on September 23, 2019, finding plaintiff had again failed to state a cognizable claim for relief (Doc. No. 17). In that screening order, the court provided plaintiff with the pleading and legal standards applicable to the claims he was attempting to assert and granted him leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty days after service of that order. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file a third amended complaint in compliance with that order, the magistrate judge would recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, due to his failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 16.)
After receiving several extensions of time in which to file a third amended complaint, plaintiff still has not done so. (See Doc. No. 30 at 2-3.) Accordingly, on March 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 30.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 18.) 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 March 19, 2020 (Doc No. 30) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: May 6 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE