From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hudson v. Vasquezcoy

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 19, 2021
1:21-cv-00861-NONE-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00861-NONE-EPG (PC)

11-19-2021

IKEEM JARMER HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. J. VASQUEZCOY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 14)

Plaintiff Ikeem Jarmer Hudson is (or was) committed at the Metropolitan State Hospital and proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint, concluding that all claims and defendants should be dismissed, except for plaintiff's excessive-force claim against defendant J. Vasquezcoy. (Doc. No. 5.) After Plaintiff notified the court that he wished to proceed only on the excessive-force claim against defendant J. Vasquezcoy, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on July 27, 2021, consistent with the screening order. (Doc. Nos. 7, 11).

On October 13, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this case without prejudice because plaintiff had failed to prosecute this case further 1 and comply with court orders, specifically by failing to complete and return documents necessary for service and to keep the court updated as to his current mailing address. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections. To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has since expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 13, 2021, (Doc. No. 14), are adopted in full;

2. Now being moot, the Clerk of Court is directed to term as no longer pending the findings and recommendations issued on July 27, 2021, (Doc. No. 11);

3. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, because of plaintiff s failure to serve, prosecute, comply with the court's orders, and update the court as to his mailing address; and

4. 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. 2


Summaries of

Hudson v. Vasquezcoy

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 19, 2021
1:21-cv-00861-NONE-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)
Case details for

Hudson v. Vasquezcoy

Case Details

Full title:IKEEM JARMER HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. J. VASQUEZCOY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 19, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-00861-NONE-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)