Opinion
1:18-cv-01565-DAD-JLT (PC)
09-02-2021
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. FISHER C. AGOSTINI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION
(Doc. Nos. 17, 34, 37)
Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 August 11, 2021, the assigned magistrate issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 37.) Specifically, to date, plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint despite receiving several extensions of time in which to do so. (Id.) On September 3, 2020, the magistrate judge had issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required, but that plaintiff be granted leave to amend his complaint to assert a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. No. 17.) Instead of filing objections to those findings and recommendations or filing a first amended complaint, in the nine months that followed, plaintiff filed numerous requests for extensions of time in which to file a first amended complaint, which the court granted. (Doc. Nos. 18-32.) On May 13, 2021, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff's requested extension of time but warned that “no further extensions will be granted absent evidence of extraordinary circumstances, ” noting that plaintiff commenced this action in November 2018. (Doc. No. 32.) On June 3, 2021, plaintiff filed yet another request for an extension of time, which the court denied because plaintiff had not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from filing a timely amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 33, 34.) On June 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a twelfth request for an extension of time, which the court granted because plaintiff represented that he was confined to his bed and unable to access programs, and “[a]ccepting plaintiff's representations as true, his back and mobility issues excuse his inability to meet this Court's prior deadline.” (Doc. No. 36.) The court extended plaintiff's deadline to file a first amended complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal if he were unable to prosecute this case, and warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss plaintiff's claim for failure to comply with a court order. No. further extensions of time will be granted.” (Id. at 2.) That extended deadline passed, and plaintiff had failed to comply with the court's order.
Accordingly, on August 11, 2021, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 37.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On August 27, 2021, plaintiff filed a document captioned “Objection to Findings and Recommendations, ” but instead of asserting any actual objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff appears to be requesting yet another extension of time without providing any explanation for why he was unable to timely file an amended complaint in compliance with the court's prior order. (Doc. No. 38 at 2.) Thus, plaintiff's purported objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.
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, including plaintiffs objections, 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 August 11, 2021 (Doc. No. 37) are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff s failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey a court order; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.