Opinion
1:20-cv-01144-NE-JLT (PC)
07-19-2021
ERIC HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS
(Doc. No. 8)
Plaintiff Eric Hernandez is a detainee in county jail proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 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 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and directing plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within twenty-one days. (Doc. No. 6). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Therefore, on March 18, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to file a response to the order to show cause within the time provided.
The U.S. Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable on March 29, 2021. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), if a pro se party fails to notify the court of a change of address, “service of documents at the prior address [of record] of the . . . party shall be fully effective.”
Accordingly, on April 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to obey court orders and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 8.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time do so has passed.
The U.S. Postal Service returned the findings and recommendations as undeliverable on May 10, 2021.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis insofar as they recommend dismissal for failure to obey court orders. The court finds it unnecessary to address the alternative grounds for dismissal discussed in the findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted to the extent they recommend dismissal for failure to obey court orders;
2. This action is dismissed for plaintiffs failure to obey court orders; and, 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for purposes of closure and to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.