From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tunstall v. Ghaly

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 19, 2022
2:21-cv-01578-DAD-DB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01578-DAD-DB

10-19-2022

ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., Plaintiff, v. MARK GHALY, et al. Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS (Doc. No. 16)

Plaintiff Robert William Tunstall, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 25, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with courts. (Doc. No. 16.) Specifically, on March 16, 2022, the district court determined that plaintiff had accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) before filing this action, and, thus, ordered plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee in order to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 14 at 2.) On April 26, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge also ordered plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee within twenty days and cautioned that his failure to comply with the order to pay the filing fee within the specified time would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Doc. No. 15.) After twenty days passed, and plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or otherwise respond to the court's orders, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file timely objections.

Rather, over five months later, on October 4, 2022, plaintiff filed a 191-page document titled “EVIDENCE.” (Doc. No. 21.) A review of plaintiff's filing indicates that the documentation is intended to offer factual support and legal argument in support of his asserted claims. (See generally id. at 8-34) (setting out each claim as stated in the complaint and providing pages of argument with citations to exhibits and legal authority). Plaintiff does not address the court's prior orders requiring him to pay the filing fee, nor does he object in any manner to the pending findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge in that regard. Accordingly, plaintiff's filing provides 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 plaintiff's filing of “EVIDENCE,” 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 May 25, 2022 (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Tunstall v. Ghaly

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 19, 2022
2:21-cv-01578-DAD-DB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)
Case details for

Tunstall v. Ghaly

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., Plaintiff, v. MARK GHALY, et al. Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 19, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01578-DAD-DB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)