Opinion
2:19-cv-01162-TLN-DMC
08-04-2021
GERIOLD B. LEVI, Plaintiff, v. J. CRAWFORD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge
Plaintiff Geriold B. Levi (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On December 15, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. (ECF No. 35.) In response to the findings and recommendations, in which the magistrate judge recommends granting Defendants J. Crawford and Buchannan's (collectively, “Defendants”) unopposed motion for terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a prior order to provide discovery, Plaintiff filed an unsigned “Declaration in Opposition to Re: Defendants' Motion for Sanctions” along with unsigned and unverified discovery responses. (See ECF No. 36.) Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's filing. (See ECF No. 37.)
The Court finds Plaintiffs filing (ECF No. 36) fails to establish excusable neglect for Plaintiffs failure to timely serve discovery responses as ordered by the Court. Specifically, Plaintiff does not explain why he did not receive Defendants' discovery requests prior to the original deadline for service of responses or prior to the deadline set by the Court to provide responses. (See id.) While Plaintiff states that he had trouble receiving mail due to housing issues, he does not specify any dates such that this Court could find the neglect excusable. Additionally, the late-provided discovery responses are unsigned and unverified and, in some instances, incomplete. Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants' original motion to compel, seek additional time to comply after the Court granted that motion, or oppose the pending motion for terminating sanctions.
The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 15, 2020 (ECF No. 35), are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendants' unopposed Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED;
3. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the Court's rules and orders; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.