From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randle v. Nakata

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 19, 2020
Case No. CV 19-01922-DMG (SHK) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. CV 19-01922-DMG (SHK)

08-19-2020

FELIX TYRONE RANDLE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE MR. NAKATA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("R&R"). No objections to the R&R have been filed. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge with one modification.

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of some claims with prejudice and some without prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiff has failed, however, to notify the Court of his current address in violation of Local Rule 41-6, and as ordered by the Court on December 16, 2019. See Electronic Case Filing Number ("ECF No.") 13, Order Re Failure to Update Address ("Order"); ECF Nos. 10-12, 14, Returned Orders. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to update the Court with his address by December 30, 2019, the Magistrate Judge would recommend that, in addition to the bases set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow Local Rule 41-6. ECF No. 13, Order.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff again failed to notify the Court of his current mailing address in violation of the Court's December 16, 2019 Order and Local Rule 41-6, the Court finds that Plaintiff's entire Complaint—and not merely the individual claims contained therein—is subject to dismissal for violating Local Rules and for failure to prosecute in addition to the reasons discussed in the R&R.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing with prejudice the claims against Defendants Judge Nakata, District Attorney Cumino, Public Defender Tucker, the Victorville District Attorney's Office, and the San Bernardino County Superior Court at Victorville. The remainder of this action is dismissed, in its entirety, without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with Local Rule 41-6. DATED: August 19, 2020

/s/_________

DOLLY M. GEE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Randle v. Nakata

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 19, 2020
Case No. CV 19-01922-DMG (SHK) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020)
Case details for

Randle v. Nakata

Case Details

Full title:FELIX TYRONE RANDLE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE MR. NAKATA, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 19, 2020

Citations

Case No. CV 19-01922-DMG (SHK) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020)