Opinion
No. 1:19-cv-0056-DAD-JLT
12-03-2019
ALEXANDER CONTE HALL, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT A. CROW, et al. Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. No. 15)
Plaintiff Alexander Conte Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action that he initiated by filing his complaint on January 10, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) After plaintiff paid the filing fee on March 7, 2019, the court issued the summons and set a mandatory scheduling conference for June 3, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) In its order setting the scheduling conference, the court indicated that it would be unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants had been served with the summons and complaint. (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) Plaintiff failed to file a proof of services of the summons and complaint.
On April 1, 2019, plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. No. 9.) On May 22, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why sanctions, including dismissal of this action, should not be imposed due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order. (Doc. No. 10.) In the alternative, the court ordered ///// plaintiff to file a proof of service of the summons and complaint no later than June 7, 2019. (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond to the court's order to show cause and did not file a proof of service.
On June 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the court's order. (Doc. No. 11.) On July 8, 2019, plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations and explained that he had attempted service of the summons and complaint but was hampered by his limited resources and incarceration. (Doc. No. 12.) Although plaintiff's objections were not timely, the magistrate judge withdrew the recommendation for dismissal and granted plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to serve the summons and complaint and file a proof of service reflecting that service with the court. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was specifically "advised that his failure to comply with [that] order will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed." (Id. at 2.) Nevertheless, plaintiff failed to file a proof of service or take any other action to continue prosecuting this action.
Therefore, on September 13, 2019, the magistrate judge once again issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 15.) The 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 5.) To date, no objections to the now pending 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 adopts the findings and recommendations.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 13, 2019 (Doc. No. 15) are adopted in full;///// /////
2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: December 3 , 2019
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE