From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 18, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01957-LJO-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01957-LJO-GBC (PC)

07-18-2012

TRACY TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

MAY BE GRANTED AND FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE


OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS

On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff Tracy Taylor ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging failure to provide orthopedic boots from the vendor of Plaintiff's choice and denial of orthotics and orthopedic slippers on the grounds that medical staff has not established medical necessity. Compl. at 5-6, 8, Doc. 1. On May 15, 2012, the undersigned dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e). Doc. 11. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's order or requested an extension of time.

"In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to consider several factors: '(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.'" Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

In this instance, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court's orders. As a result, there is no pleading on file that sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e), the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 and for failure to prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Taylor v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 18, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01957-LJO-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2012)
Case details for

Taylor v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:TRACY TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 18, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01957-LJO-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2012)