From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raymond v. Martin

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 6, 2021
1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2021)

Opinion

1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT

11-06-2021

JAMES RAYMOND, Plaintiff, v. WARREN MARTIN, Defendant. INGRID CRAWFORD SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., Defendants. A.J.C., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF JAMES RAYMOND'S CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 89)

On March 5, 2018, plaintiff James Raymond, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging that defendants are liable for the wrongful death of his son, Augustus Joshua Crawford. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 September 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that “[b]ecause Raymond has failed to comply with the Local Rules and failed to prosecute his claims and has absented himself from this litigation, ” plaintiff Raymond's claims be dismissed without prejudice and that this action proceed only with the claims of the remaining plaintiffs and with James Raymond joined as a nominal defendant. (Doc. No. 89.) Specifically, plaintiff has failed to “keep the court and opposing parties advised as to his [] current address, ” as required by Local Rule 183, and since June 2021, all mail sent by the court to plaintiff at his address of record has been returned by the U.S. Postal Service as “Undeliverable: Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward.” See L.R. 183(b). The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 89 at 5.) On October 12, 2021, those findings and recommendations mailed to plaintiff was also returned to the court as “Undeliverable: Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward.” To date, no objections to the 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 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 89) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff James Raymond's claims in this action are dismissed without prejudice;

3. This action proceeds only on the claims of plaintiffs Ingrid Crawford Smith, A.C., and A.J.C., with James Raymond joined as a nominal defendant; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that plaintiff James Raymond has been terminated as a plaintiff in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Raymond v. Martin

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 6, 2021
1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Raymond v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:JAMES RAYMOND, Plaintiff, v. WARREN MARTIN, Defendant. INGRID CRAWFORD…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 6, 2021

Citations

1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2021)