(PC) Watkins v. Tuolumne County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND C. WATKINS, No. 1:18-cv-00787-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY and GUARDS, ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, TO PROSECUTE, AND TO 15 Defendants. FOLLOW A COURT ORDER 16 (Doc. No. 10) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Raymond C. Watkins is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On October 30, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that the case be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 24 claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 10.) The findings 25 and recommendation were served on both parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 || were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service.! (Jd. at 2.) No objections have 2 | been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that 5 | the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 10) issued on October 30, 2019 are 8 adopted in full; 9 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiffs failure to state a claim, failure to 10 prosecute, and failure to obey a court order; and 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. ame 13 \ 14 Dated: _ March 30, 2020 eee Ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | | The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff but returned to the court as 26 | undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address with the court. Plaintiff, as a pro se party “is responsible for keeping the Court informed of his current address; absent filing a 27 | notice of change of address, service at the prior address is fully effective. Pogue v. Hedgpeth, No. 1:11-CV-00192-LJO, 2014 WL 1271379, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) (citing Local Rule 28 | 182(f)).